Oral Answers to Questions

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Services

David Taylor: If he will make a statement on rail passenger services in north-west Leicestershire.

Stephen Ladyman: The north-west of the county is currently served by rail services operated by the Central Trains and Midland Mainline franchises. In October, we announced a new structure of rail franchises, to be implemented following the expiry of the current franchises. Services will then be provided by a new unified East Midlands franchise.

David Taylor: The Burton-upon-Trent to Leicester route, including the third oldest rail line in England, runs through the heart of the national forest, crosses three counties, links two regions and serves Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Coalville in my constituency. Since Beeching killed off passenger services, our area has been transformed economically, socially and environmentally and there is huge support for the return of passenger rail services. Will the Minister indicate how a local community can proceed in the light of the fact that the county council's support has cooled dramatically since political control changed in 2001? Perhaps he could include me in the consultation on the successor franchise to which he has referred.

Stephen Ladyman: I am happy to commit to ensuring that my hon. Friend and other local MPs are included in the consultation on the new franchise. There are two routes by which a case can be made to return services to that line. One is to go back to the local council and convince it to include it in the local transport plan. The other is to have it included as a priced option when the franchise is let in a couple of years. The local community needs to proceed on either basis.

Peter Bone: Midland Mainline, which runs through Leicestershire, also runs through Wellingborough. Is the Minister aware of the concern that it has put back the time the last train returns from London? It now leaves at 11.15 pm, which makes it difficult for people to come to London, for example, to see a show and get back to Wellingborough or Leicestershire. Will he use his good offices to encourage Midland Mainline to change its view?

Stephen Ladyman: We will certainly relay the hon. Gentleman's views to the operator, but I understand that the changes were made in response to passenger loading.

Andy Reed: I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) in wanting to see passenger services extended in north-west Leicestershire, as we achieved for the service from Leicester to Loughborough. Is the Minister aware that the future of the Ivanhoe line, which is part of the package to which my hon. Friend referred, will be in danger if Leicester city council, which has also changed political control, decides to withdraw its £400,000 subsidy to that service? Is not that a retrograde step when we are trying to increase passenger use, particularly on local trains and local runs, to reduce congestion both in Loughborough and in Leicester?

Stephen Ladyman: My understanding is that the city council has decided to withdraw its funding from the scheme, which I am sure local people will take into account when the council comes up for re-election. Continued support for the line now depends on the view of the county. We are still waiting to hear whether it wishes to continue to support that line.

Philip Hollobone: Trains to Leicestershire on Midland Mainline run through Kettering. Is the Minister aware of the huge housing expansion planned for Northamptonshire up to 2021, and will he ensure that the next franchise for the area covered by Midland Mainline and Central Trains takes into account the future population increases for both Leicestershire and Northamptonshire?

Stephen Ladyman: The Central Trains franchise is changing anyway. Whenever franchises change and are re-let, there is widespread consultation and the franchise process takes into account issues such as further expansion in the area. Again, it will be for the hon. Gentleman to make representations to ensure that those matters are covered when that happens.

Regional Transport Forums

John Pugh: If he will make a statement on the work of the regional transport forums.

Karen Buck: In introducing regional funding allocations for transport, housing and economic development, we asked regions to provide us with advice by January 2006 on their regional priorities. We are aware that some regions have elected to establish regional transport forums to assist their work, but the structure and tasks assigned to such bodies is a matter for individual regions to decide.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for her answer. In just a few weeks, the regional transport boards, controlled by the Government offices, will submit what are virtually 10-year regional transport plans, prioritise millions of pounds of expenditure, disappoint many, but affect every community, business and council, with minimal consultation and limited democratic debate and feedback. Is such haste wise or necessary, and will not it produce divisive or poor outcomes?

Karen Buck: I am sorry to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he is not happy with the consultation. We took the decision not to impose a particular model of consultation on the regions, but as this is likely to be the way of the future it is important that regions make the best use of their consultation options, whether with businesses or communities. When we come to consider the plans again next spring, we will examine the matter carefully. We will want to see that they have demonstrated robust consultation processes.

John Redwood: Will the Minister ensure when cross-examining those regional bodies that they have come forward with projects that can tackle, at the least cost and in the best way, the underlying problem of shortage of capacity of all kinds in our transport system? I would rather she were consulting elected local government but, given that she is going to do it in that way, will she ensure that those bodies are asked the right questions and come forward with bottleneck-reducing schemes, particularly ones that can be privately financed?

Karen Buck: That is absolutely central to what those forums should be doing. We are asking them not just to look at their transport priorities—it will indeed be a question of setting priorities; there is never enough money to cover everything that everyone wants to achieve—but for the first time in this process to balance transport investment with housing and economic development, rather than taking investment decisions in silos, as they have done in the past. This is the first time that we have taken such an approach, but it is the future and I expect it to be built on as the years go by.

Road Humps

John Mann: When he expects to reissue guidance on the use of road humps.

Stephen Ladyman: The Department for Transport is developing a local transport note on traffic calming, and updating its code of practice on consultation with emergency services when traffic calming measures are proposed. Both documents will include references to road humps and are planned for publication early next year.

John Mann: I am delighted that new guidance is coming out, but will the Minister ensure that it deals with motorbikes' ability to go through the middle of concrete cushion road humps, on-street parking on such humps and whether emergency service vehicles such as the Nottinghamshire fire engine can straddle them?

Stephen Ladyman: I can certainly reassure the House that those issues will be taken into consideration when we prepare the guidance because my hon. Friend has been invited to be a consultee in that process, and he has doubtless made these very valuable points to the team putting the guidance together. I should point out, however, that no one set of traffic calming measures is right in every location; some will work and some will not, depending on the particular circumstances. It is important that local highways engineers make local decisions and pick the right traffic calming measure for the local area.

Henry Bellingham: I agree with the Minister that such decisions should be up to local engineers. Is he aware, however, that although some traffic calming schemes in my constituency have been a great success, other sets of road humps have been a failure and have given rise to collateral damage such as property subsidence? What advice can he give to local residents who have had problems with property subsidence and who want those road humps if not removed, then at least reconfigured?

Stephen Ladyman: The only advice that I can give is for the hon. Gentleman to work with local highways authorities to ensure that they get feedback on these matters and that the collateral damage, as he describes it, is known to them. It is perfectly possible for authorities to redesign an area once traffic calming has been shown not to work; that has happened in my constituency and it doubtless happens in many others. People such as the hon. Gentleman can campaign to ensure that local highways authorities remove such traffic calming measures if they are not working.

Alan Duncan: May I commend the Department for Transport on supporting English Heritage and the Campaign to Protect Rural England in their efforts to improve streetscape and the design of traffic calming measures such as road humps? In particular, I commend the document entitled "Streets for All." Streetscape is a very important environmental issue, but the trouble is that the Department's good intentions in encouraging better design and reducing street clutter never get followed through because there is no funding incentive. Moreover, the Audit Commission and the local government ombudsman say that this issue has nothing to do with them. What financial incentives, along with guidance, is the Minister prepared to instigate so that councils throughout the country will try to improve our streetscape environment—speed humps, street clutter and everything else—and not just let things deteriorate, as they are currently doing?

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Department's initiatives and I agree that streetscape is important. We should try to reduce clutter wherever possible, and when doing so ensure that that is compatible with road safety, which, as he will doubtless agree, has to be the No. 1 priority. There may well not be the financial incentives that he is looking for, but there are plenty of other incentives to encourage local authorities to act, not least of which is the local electoral process. If local authorities are not being responsive to this matter, they will not get re-elected.

Concessionary Fares

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the concessionary bus fare scheme.

Karen Buck: Free off-peak local bus travel in England for people aged 60 and over and disabled people will come into effect on 1 April 2006. The necessary order was laid in Parliament on 28 November. The Government are providing an extra £350 million in revenue support grant for 2006–07, which will be sufficient to fund the cost to local authorities.

Stephen Hepburn: My hon. Friend will know that the metro makes up a substantial part of the transport system in Tyne and Wear and is used by thousands of pensioners. While I welcome the news of extra finance, there will still be a substantial deficit in Tyne and Wear after the provision of free travel for pensioners. Will she review that decision?

Karen Buck: I am conscious of the representations that Nexus has made on that issue. The £350 million provided by the Chancellor is to fund free off-peak bus travel and is a generous boost to bus travel. It is up to local authorities to make the decision to make any additional provision for other transport modes or to extend the scheme in other ways. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurance in the short term that there will be any extension of the scheme.

Mark Harper: Welcome though the scheme is, one problem in areas such as mine is that many constituents wish to travel to towns, to shop or visit friends, across district and national boundaries, and that limits the benefit of the scheme. The local authority, although it may wish to extend the scheme, may simply not have the resources. What help can the Minister provide?

Karen Buck: The idea of a fully national concessionary scheme is attractive, but it would cost an extra £160 million. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party is committed to providing that extra sum, perhaps he could advise us of that. Transport competes for priority in public expenditure with other services and, at the moment, we are working on the £350 million investment in bus travel that I have mentioned.

Jeff Ennis: Is my hon. Friend aware that First South Yorkshire has implemented fare increases of more than 30 per cent. in the past year, leaving south Yorkshire with some of the highest fares in the country? South Yorkshire passenger transport executive has now informed us that First South Yorkshire is not willing to sign up to the previously agreed deal to fund the concessionary travel scheme. What advice can my hon. Friend offer South Yorkshire passenger transport executive to correct that unsatisfactory situation?

Karen Buck: I am aware that in these processes some robust negotiation usually takes place between bus companies and local authorities about the concessions. The Government are funding bus services overall by almost £1 billion and providing an additional boost of £350 million. Inevitably, service levels across the country will vary, but I hope that that investment will be welcomed on both sides of the House as a major step forward in providing concessionary transport to an important and vulnerable constituency.

Patrick McLoughlin: In constituencies such as mine, community transport run by charities—such as those in Bakewell and Eyam, Ashbourne and Amber Valley—provides a valuable and essential service for older people. What arrangements are being made for those services to benefit from the scheme?

Karen Buck: It is for local authorities to decide, according to their resources, whether to invest in other forms of transport, be that community transport schemes or token schemes, which can be more applicable to rural areas. Some local authorities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Jeff Ennis), already fund the concessionary scheme above the present level. Local authorities across the country are taking decisions to meet the needs of local communities in different ways, and they will have to decide how to use the money that was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government yesterday.

Nick Brown: It appears that insufficient funds have been allocated to district authorities in the county of Tyne and Wear and, therefore, to Nexus to cover even the off-peak concessionary pensioners bus fare. If that turns out to be the case, what action will my hon. Friend take to remedy the situation?

Karen Buck: I do not accept that the sum available will create that shortfall. The £350 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced is more than sufficient to ensure that full off-peak services are available across the whole country. It is always inevitable in the development of any formula that there is a risk that not every authority will be satisfied. We consulted the Local Government Association about the formula and amended it to weight it more heavily towards the uptake of concessionary transport, and in so doing we went a long way to meet the concerns of Nexus, which we appreciate has a particular problem.

John Hayes: In the Budget, with typical hyperbole, the Chancellor promised free bus travel for every pensioner, so I was surprised when, a few weeks ago, I received a letter signed by the hon. Lady revealing that pensioners in rural areas such as mine, who need to travel outside their district to reach hospitals and other vital services, will be obliged to pay. She has confirmed that today in answer to questions from both sides of the House. She also said that people using dial-a-ride and community bus schemes may have to pay, too, unless local councils divert resources from other key priorities. She really must correct the Chancellor's claim, or apologise for her letter, withdraw it and think again. Is this free travel for every pensioner or is it free only if they do not travel where they need to go?

Karen Buck: I absolutely refute what the hon. Gentleman says. Since the announcement was made in the Budget, it has been clear that the concession extends and builds on the existing scheme, which is free off-peak travel for pensioners within their local authority area. That has never differed, and it has been raised on a number of occasions in the House and outside—it builds on the existing scheme. To create a national scheme would require primary legislation and, as I said earlier, an additional £160 million. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the concession that was announced builds on the provision that I have outlined.

John Hayes: The Chancellor said:
	"free local bus travel for every pensioner".—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 269.]
	So now we know: another of the Chancellor's forecasts has been downgraded. Local councils fear that the Treasury's grant will not meet the extra demand on the buses and that yet again they will have to rob other budgets or raise council tax to bail out the Government.
	The explanatory notes to the statutory instrument say that
	"there is no information on take-up rates or trips per week",
	among, for example, disabled people aged under 60 who are now entitled to concessionary travel. Is not it true that local government will be underfunded and bus operators will be reimbursed only once they have paid out, that pensioners and the disabled will not know where they are allowed to travel free of charge, and that the Government do not have a clue about the financial effects of the scheme? Hapless, helpless, hopeless.

Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman should tell us what arrangements his party has made to extend the scheme. It is a very generous extension to concessionary transport and builds on the existing scheme, which is for local transport. That is consistent with the announcement that my right hon. Friend made at the time of the Budget. It is consistent with the form of words that we have used throughout. At present, local half-price transport on buses is available to pensioners and people with disabilities and we are putting in an extra £350 million to take that up to a full concession. That is absolutely consistent with everything that has already been said and I am confident that pensioners across the country will welcome the scheme.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is such a good idea that I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that it would be most unfortunate if it got off on the wrong foot. It is important that the Department takes charge of the various schemes and ensures that they run seamlessly together. Otherwise, we shall be in the extraordinary situation where a good scheme, needed by pensioners and benefiting so many people, will fall into disrepute simply because of incompetence over which the Government are not in control.

Karen Buck: I am afraid that I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. At present, we have a scheme that works well across the country and which we are topping up with an additional £350 million. I see no reason why the scheme as it will be implemented from next April will not work and will not provide, as it is intended and funded to do, a much more generous concessionary scheme for disabled people and for pensioners.

Kevan Jones: Although I welcome the extra investment in concessionary fares, in my constituency it will actually make things worse for pensioners. My constituency neighbours Tyne and Wear, and many of my constituents travel over the border into Tyne and Wear for their services. Under the scheme as outlined, which is based on district council boundaries, they will not get free travel; they will have to pay more to travel across the border.

Karen Buck: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I honestly do not see how it could possibly make anything worse. At the moment, the half-price concessionary scheme extends to the local authority border. We are now making that a free concessionary scheme extending to the local authority border, so I see absolutely no reason why this is anything other than an additional generous contribution to concessionary travel.

Railway Stations

Martin Horwood: What assessment he has made of the relative benefits of railway stations inside and outside towns; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: There is no general preference between town centre and out-of-town locations. Instead, stations are planned on a case-by-case basis.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I find it slightly curious. Given that nearly 20 per cent. of households in Gloucestershire have no car and given the decline in walking and cycling, which I am sure he would agree is damaging for our health and our environment, would he not agree with my constituent Jonathon Porritt, the chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, when he says that
	"new railway stations must be accessible by foot and bike and should not encourage unnecessary car use",
	and that therefore any diversion of services from existing town stations such as Cheltenham Spa to new stations outside towns would be harmful to our health and our environment?

Alistair Darling: What I think the hon. Gentleman is getting at is that Gloucester county council has put forward a proposal to build an out-of-town railway station, and he is right to say that it serves broadly the same market as the one at Cheltenham. He may also be aware that the councillors have submitted an application for funding for that station. One of the things that the Department would want to know is whether it would take passengers or services away from Cheltenham, which would clearly be unsatisfactory. In addition to that, of course I agree that we want to make stations as accessible as possible.

Andrew Gwynne: Railway stations either in town or out of town are fine if the trains can get into them. Given the serious capacity problems in the central and south Manchester hub, what assessment has been made by my right hon. Friend's Department with a view to increasing the Network Rail capacity of the Manchester hub, particularly through to Manchester Piccadilly station?

Alistair Darling: As I said at the last Question Time, I am aware of the problems in relation to capacity at Manchester's Piccadilly station, particularly in relation to some of the train services. Network Rail is looking at those. Part of the problem is that we are dealing with a network in that part of Manchester that was essentially built by the Victorians and does not lend itself that easily to being expanded without quite major engineering works, but we want more people to use the trains—indeed, more people are using trains now than at any time since the second world war—and Network Rail is aware of that and is doing what it can to build on capacity.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that parkway stations that are on the hinterland of the town have a part to play in providing more capacity for rail lines, and will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority to look at a new parkway station for Canvey island that would get more passengers and put more capacity on to the c2c Fenchurch Street line?

Alistair Darling: I would write to the SRA except that I abolished it, so I do not actually think that a letter would achieve the purpose that the hon. Gentleman hopes to achieve. However, I certainly agree with him that out-of-town railway stations can play an important part in attracting people to drive there, leave their car and take the train for the rest of the journey. I said at the start that there is no predisposition in favour of one type of station or another; each one needs to be looked at on its merits, and anything that encourages people to use the train must be a good thing.

David Lepper: One of the main issues raised with me at a meeting this weekend, organised by Brighton and Hove city council to mark the international year of the disabled, concerned problems of access to many of our older stations, such as Preston Park in my constituency, by people with disabilities. What discussions has the Department had with the train operating companies and others on the question of making our railway stations fully accessible to all those people who would like to use trains?

Alistair Darling: There have been many such discussions, and there is a programme to upgrade stations systematically over the next few years to make them more accessible. Again, to return to the point made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), a lot of stations were built long before anyone had any sense that we had to ensure access for people with disabilities. That takes a lot of time and is quite expensive, but we are determined to do it, and Network Rail and the train operators have a programme to achieve just that.

Airport Expansion

John Randall: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on airport expansion in the United Kingdom.

Alistair Darling: The policy framework for developing airport capacity to 2030 was set out in the White Paper that we published in December 2003. Progress has been made on meeting the commitments in that White Paper in a number of ways, and we intend to report progress on developments by the end of next year, as we promised to do.

John Randall: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Different Departments will give different emphasis to airport expansion, so I wonder whether he can tell me what discussions he and his Department have had, for example, with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury about airport expansion. In particular, have they discussed the possible expansion of Heathrow with a third runway?

Alistair Darling: Yes, of course, those Departments have because the White Paper that was published two years ago was an expression of Government policy, and therefore represents the Government's collective view. It is patently obvious that both of those Departments—the Treasury, in particular—take a great interest in all matters that might involve public expenditure one way or another. The White Paper sets out a measured, balanced development strategy, which takes into account not only environmental considerations but, crucially, the fact that we must have airports that will allow people to travel to different parts of this country and the world because that is essential for our future economic development.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not one of the problems the growth in domestic air travel in the UK for journeys that could be done much better and more appropriately by rail? Can my right hon. Friend think of some innovative ways to achieve such a modal shift—for example, by increasing airline passenger duty for domestic mainland flights in the UK and using the revenues raised to fund high-speed lines to cut journey times and make rail more attractive?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we should encourage people to use the most environmentally efficient way to travel if we can. Let me give an example that is a bit further away from the city that both of us represent. Now that the west coast main line has been upgraded at a cost of £7.5 billion, the journey time on the train service between Manchester and London is just over two hours, and it is extremely efficient and probably a better way to get to London than going out to the airport and flying down. So that is a very good example.
	As I have told the House before, the Chancellor and I have asked Sir Rod Eddington to look at some of the longer-term transport developments that we need in this country, one of which will be whether we should invest money in a high-speed rail link that runs from the north to the south. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to encourage people to travel in a way that causes the least possible damage to the environment, although I draw his attention to the fact that any form of transport—high-speed rail links included—has an environmental consequence. High-speed railway lines draw a substantial amount of energy when people are travelling on them.

Tom Brake: The pre-Budget statement was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate joined-up thinking in relation to airport expansion. Instead, chapter 3 of the report talks of satisfying demand for a threefold increase in air travel by 2030, and chapter 7 talks about reducing emissions from aviation. Which of those two chapters did the Secretary of State co-author? Why, for the eighth year running, have the Government refused to make aviation pay its full environmental costs?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows, the taxation of aviation fuel is governed by international treaty and it is not open to any country to take unilateral action in that respect. I am sure that he will have noticed that last week, because of pressure brought to bear by the UK Government, the European Union signed up to including aviation in a EU-wide emissions trading scheme, which will go a long way to reduce emission. As I said just a few moments ago, the White Paper on aviation, which we published a couple of years ago, not only sought to strike a balance to ensure that people could fly to different parts of the country and the world, but was very conscious of our environmental obligations. The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in favour of people flying, but they are against the means to enable them to do so.

Jim Sheridan: Having spoken recently to senior management at Glasgow airport, I know that they are extremely happy with the proposals in the White Paper on airport expansion. However, they are concerned about access to Glasgow airport, especially due to congestion on the M8 and the situation regarding the Glasgow airport rail link, responsibility for which is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Scottish Executive to try to move those things forward?

Alistair Darling: I know that those associated with Glasgow airport, in common with many people involved in the aviation industry and others, welcome the fact that two years ago the Government did something that no Government had done for 30 years: set out a strategic development. I understand the importance of the rail link and that it is of great interest to those at Glasgow airport, as my hon. Friend says. The matter is devolved to the Scottish Executive. I have had discussions with the Liberal Democrat Minister who is responsible for the rail link, so I look forward to finding out when he will give it the go-ahead.

Stephen Dorrell: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the effects of the   Government's airports policy is to encourage the development of Nottingham East Midlands airport as a national air freight hub? The development clearly brings economic benefits to both the businesses that use air freight services and the people who work in the airport, which is welcome. However, does he acknowledge that one of the effects of growing air freight activity at the airport has been an increase in night-flights activity, which has resulted in environmental burdens for the surrounding community? Would it not be right for a Government who are encouraging the development of air freight activity at Nottingham East Midlands airport for entirely understandable reasons also to accept responsibility for regulating the environmental impact by introducing a designation of the airport? The Government would thus accept responsibility for the environmental impact of the decisions that they are taking.

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman puts his case extremely reasonably. He is absolutely right that there is a tension between the development of Nottingham East Midlands airport, which of course brings huge economic benefit to the area as well as benefit to people who want to travel, and the fact that air freight almost necessarily involves night flights, which have noise associated with them. There was quite a discussion about that last Question Time. The Government are conscious of the matter and we will do everything that we can to try to mitigate the situation and put the right controls in place to ensure that noise is kept to a minimum. However, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises, the airport itself brings a lot of benefit to the area. We are trying to tread a fine line between the development of the airport and ensuring that we protect the well-being of people who live nearby.

East Coast Main Line

Linda Riordan: What progress he is making on increasing the capacity of the east coast main line.

Alistair Darling: The award of the east coast main line franchise to the Great North Eastern Railway provides for substantial increases in the number of services provided, along with opportunities for extensions to the electrified network.

Linda Riordan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that if we are to encourage more people to use the railways, we need to provide better services and to increase capacity, especially on the east coast main line? That would enable thousands of people from the north to access the most popular routes, and it would not only protect the environment, but help to boost local economies, such as that of Halifax.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Under the new franchise that has been awarded to GNER, there will be about 65 services from Leeds to London each weekday, which is approximately one every half hour. Additionally, GNER is committed to working with the Department and Network Rail to examine electrifying the line between Leeds and the east coast. There have been improvements at Grantham to cut down the number of delays of trains coming from Skegness and the east coast. King's Cross station is due to be developed further to allow for greater capacity, and much further north the Scottish Executive plan to enlarge Edinburgh Waverley station. On top of that, I except that further improvements will be made to ensure that the line, which is one of the main arterial railway routes in the country, can carry more passengers.

Iain Wright: One improvement we could make to increase capacity is to introduce better planning and management of timetables. The present timetabling arrangements act as a block to alternative providers on the east coast such as Grand Central, which wishes to provide a direct rail service from Sunderland through Hartlepool to London. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to scrutinise timetabling arrangements to free up capacity?

Alistair Darling: First of all, long, bitter experience after privatisation tells us that timetabling must be realistic. There have been far too many cases, especially following privatisation in the mid-1990s, in which too many services were put on to a network that could not sustain them, with the result that there were more delays. We had to take action to try to ensure that timetables are more realistic. Secondly, the Government have to take a view on the effect that new operators on the east coast main line have on the passenger loadings of existing services, and the subsequent effect on any subsidy that is payable or, alternatively, the premium payments to Government. Grand Central railways has submitted an application to the rail regulator, and it is his job to decide whether it can gain that access. I understand that he is likely to make his decision in February next year.

John Grogan: Will my right hon. Friend commend Hull Trains on providing extra services on the east coast main line, mainly to Selby and Hull, without any public subsidy whatsoever? Does he agree that the interest of GNER, the dominant operator, should not be used to frustrate other operators such as Grand Central railways, which would offer innovative services from York to London similar to those offered by Hull Trains from Selby and Hull to London.

Alistair Darling: I am very impressed by my colleague's new-found enthusiasm for competition on the railways, as it has not always been evident. Hull Trains is the only example of an open access operator running services between Hull and King's Cross. That service is extremely popular, and when we published our White Paper on rail development we said that we hoped that it would continue. However, it should be borne in mind that GNER will pay a great deal of money to the Department, which will thus be available for investment in the railways. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), we must have regard to the impact of any new operator on the amount of money coming into the railways. The railways need to be operated as a whole, and, if new services start to operate, we must look at the implications for other services before reaching further conclusions as to whether anyone else should enter the network.

Ports Policy

Alan Whitehead: What plans he has to develop a policy on ports.

Stephen Ladyman: Existing policy is set out in "Modern Ports", published in 2000. In "The Future of Transport" White Paper, the Government committed to review the ports policy framework. We will issue a discussion document early next year, and set out policy later in 2006.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When he issues that discussion document, will he look in particular at the strategic national role of container ports? Will he look at the role that ports play on both their land and seaward sides as well as the strategic access to ports, particularly for container traffic, provided by our rail network?

Stephen Ladyman: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall do so. The review will be wide-ranging, and it will take into account all aspects of port capacity and the economic benefits that the nation derives from it. In considering trans-shipment, we must look at both economic benefits and environmental issues.

Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) about the importance of a proper national strategy for the development of trans-shipment hubs? I declare a constituency interest, as there is an advancing project at Scapa Flow in Orkney, which I commend to the Minister. As there is a clear overlap between devolved and reserved responsibilities, will he work closely with Scottish Executive Ministers to ensure that we achieve a strategy that is right not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of northern Europe?

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's points. The consultation will have to be national and we will need to involve the devolved Assemblies in the consideration. We must look at all the issues as openly as possible. The economic impact of the operation of our ports is unquestionable. We must maximise it and at the same time take account of the environmental and social issues.

Gwyn Prosser: Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister's visit to the port of Dover in April, at a time when the Conservatives were advocating the privatisation of publicly owned ports? Does he recall the Prime Minister telling reporters from the Dover Mercury and Dover Express:
	"I am totally opposed to selling-off the trust port because it then ends as a public asset"?
	Does my hon. Friend agree with those wise words?

Stephen Ladyman: Far be it from me ever to question anything the Prime Minister has ever said. I recollect that at the time I closely associated myself with those very comments, and I do not see why I would resile from any of them now.

Julian Brazier: This may be my last appearance at Transport questions: I can confirm that the Opposition have a new Leader—the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Given the significant impact on the regional economy caused by each individual decision to build or expand a port, does the Minister accept that the absence of a co-ordinated ports policy leaves his Department's efforts at joined-up government all at sea? Does he further accept that pursuing separate inquiries into each application—£45 million and seven years wasted at Dibden bay—is the worst possible arrangement for both the industry and individual campaigners, and leaves their future in deep water?

Stephen Ladyman: I take it from my parliamentary neighbour's comments that he did not vote for the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), but if that is his last contribution, let me give him some reassurance. The Government have a well thought-out policy on ports. We take account of market pressures. Our proper planning consultation process, which allows us to make decisions, has served us well over many years. However, we believe that certain aspects of the way we plan port capacity and take those decisions could be improved. That is why we are carrying out a review. Many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman will be fed into that review, and I have no doubt they will be taken into account when we produce our new ports policy later in 2006.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Celia Barlow: What steps he is taking to ensure carbon dioxide emissions are reduced in the transport sector.

Michael Jack: What steps his Department is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all forms of transport.

Alistair Darling: I recently announced the renewable transport fuels obligation that will reduce emissions by a million tonnes of carbon, equivalent to taking a million cars off the road. The Government have introduced several other measures to reduce emissions and we are working to bring aviation within the EU emissions trading scheme. That, as I said a few moments ago, has been accepted by Ministers across the European Union.

Celia Barlow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recent announcement on the renewable transport fuel obligation. However, I am concerned that we should do more to reduce the effects of carbon emissions and transport. Coastal constituencies such as mine in Hove and Portslade would, after all, be badly affected by rising sea levels. Can my right hon. Friend explain why the requirement has been set at 5 per cent. of all fuels sold in the UK by 2010?

Alistair Darling: We chose 5 per cent. because at that level the fuel can be supplied to the existing fleet of cars, without any alterations being made. If the amount of biofuels is increased beyond that, it would begin to become necessary to adapt car engines and also, at some stage, the pumps that supply the petrol. However, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there is a pilot scheme starting in the west country next year with which the Ford Motor company is involved, which will be selling biofuels of up to, I think, 85 per cent., which is fairly common in Sweden, for example, and it will be interesting to see how those trials progress.

Michael Jack: In his reply, the Secretary of State mentioned emissions from road vehicles and from aviation, but he did not mention discharges of greenhouse gases from shipping. What steps are the Government taking to extend their thinking on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Britain's merchant fleet and to conduct such thinking on a wider-world basis?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that ships burn particularly heavy fuels, which account for substantial emissions. However, there are many fewer ships than other forms of transport, which reduces the scale of their contribution. Another complication is whatever we do must comply with our international obligations, which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recall, are complex. I am not unsympathetic to his point, but I cannot promise him anything immediately.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend consider the effects of pollution on residential areas that are close to motorways? In particular, there are plans to widen the M1 in South Yorkshire, and the residential area of Tinsley is close to that motorway. Will my right hon. Friend consider the results of experiments conducted in the Netherlands, where a 50 mph speed limit was trialled on motorways in residential areas? Pollution levels fell substantially as a result of those experiments, with great benefits to the people who live next door to those motorways.

Alistair Darling: We will, of course, examine the environmental impact, as we are required to do by existing European directives. I am aware of measures that have been taken in different parts of the world, but we have not reached a decision on widening the M1.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Patronage

David Taylor: What recent representations he has received on the extent of his powers of patronage.

Jim Murphy: The Duchy office has received no representations on the extent of the powers of patronage held by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Courts Act 2003 ended important powers on the appointment of magistrates.

David Taylor: In May this year, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reputedly used his power of eminence bleu patronage to secure a peerage and ministerial post for an unelected No. 10 adviser, Andrew Adonis, who was the progenitor of privatised city academies and the author of the barmier ideas in the recent education White Paper, including divisive and elitist trust schools. Given that track record, does the Minister agree that the next Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should divest herself—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—of every scintilla of patronage and influence on Government appointments at a very early stage in her career?

Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question and that vote of confidence. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster takes responsibility on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen as patron, either solely or jointly, of 42 Church livings. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also presents suitable candidates to the bishop of the diocese and has power over ancient livings. I have been informed that there are two such livings in Leicestershire—one in Whitwick and one in Thringstone. The living in Thringstone is currently vacant, and I will do all that I can in conjunction with my ministerial colleagues to suggest that a suitable candidate is sitting on the Back Benches.

David Heath: I am glad that the sole incumbent of the Cabinet Office believes that the ancient livings patronage is in good hands. Does he believe that consideration by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of matters such as patronage might interfere with other duties, such as control and responsibility for the Civil Contingencies Secretariat? Might not people in this country be rather surprised that nobody has been in charge of emergency planning during what we are told is a war on terrorism for nearly five weeks?

Jim Murphy: That point was made recently in another place. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat is closely monitored and works in partnership with Ministers across Government. The Home Secretary is the lead Minister responsible for a lot of the responses to emergency crises and contingencies. I shall take this opportunity to thank those involved in that secretariat for their fantastic work with Ministers across Government.

Gordon Prentice: Unfortunately, we have to live with the curse of patronage. There are 30,000 public appointments, many of the most important of which—the chairman of the BBC, for example—are made using patronage powers. Before such appointments are made, would it not be a good idea to have confirmation hearings, here in the House of Commons, along the lines of those in the Senate?

Jim Murphy: If we were to subject all those appointments to some sort of confirmation process in the House of Commons—

Gordon Prentice: Not all of them—the most important ones.

Jim Murphy: The Government are not attracted to that suggestion. We have set up a process according to which there is an independent commissioner for public appointments and all appointments are made in line with that code of practice. There is also a new House of Lords Appointments Commission. I think that we have got the balance about right as regards the way in which these matters are handled. However, if my hon. Friend has specific suggestions about some of the detail, ministerial colleagues and I would be happy to listen to him.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister recall that before the general election we had a separate Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, both at great public expense that was not revealed until after the election was over? Now that it is no longer required to pay so much money to someone to run a general election campaign, does the Minister accept that it is likely that the Prime Minister will use his patronage to appoint new Ministers to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Cabinet Office rather more slowly than my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will use his powers of patronage to appoint an entire new Front-Bench team?

Dennis Skinner: What did they do with the Short money?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has made that point on numerous occasions. The Cabinet Office continues to work on the agenda of better regulation, civil contingencies, transformation in Government public services, and modernisation, regardless of how many Ministers are in the Cabinet Office.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.   Skinner), as ever, offers good advice from a sedentary position as regards the use of public finances for political purposes. There has been a vast increase in the amount of Short money used for the Conservative Opposition, spent entirely ineffectively, unaccountably and with no discernible outcome. In future, we should cast a more careful eye over the way in which taxpayers' money is used to subsidise unpopular political parties.

Chris Bryant: To return to ecclesiastical livings—not that I have any intention of doing so myself—is it not a bit of a 19th-century anachronism still to have a politician involved in the appointment of people to livings? In fact, it is not even 19th century, but 17th century or 16th century. We might even end up with a Roman Catholic or an atheist naming people to Church of England livings. Would not that be a little curious? Is not this a load of old Trollope that we should put an end to?

Jim Murphy: I do not wear my faith on my sleeve but, as a Roman Catholic, I am interested in that suggestion. My hon. Friend is right to say that this is part of an historical tradition. It dates back not to the 19th century but to the time of the English civil war and other periods of English history. We are in a process of continued modernisation across Government. In the Courts Act 2003, we surrendered important powers in the appointment of magistrates. I suspect that the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, perhaps in conjunction with my hon. Friend, may wish to consider some detailed continued modernisation of those historical—some would say quaint—powers.

Hampton Report

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Hampton report on reducing the number of Government agencies.

Jim Murphy: The Hampton report is a central part of the Government's better regulation agenda. Good progress has been made on implementation. The timetable for change set out in Philip Hampton's report will be met.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's commitment to cut the number of inspection agencies from 31 to seven—11 to four in the public sector. However, can the Minister answer this question, which Philip Hampton posed but never got an answer to: how many forms are circulating in public sector agencies that private individuals and companies have to fill in?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking the most helpful question so far. He is right to talk about the reduction in the number of inspectors and regulators that the Government are determined to achieve. The reason no answer can be given by Mr. Hampton and others is that no one in Government has known in the past or knows today. That is why we launched the administrative burden inquiry, which is continuing to identify the level of bureaucratic burden across Government. Once we have done that, we will set ambitious targets for annual reductions. We will have more to report on that in due course.

Andy Reed: Later today, we shall discuss the London Olympics Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the lessons of Hampton should be extended to the sports world? Will he ensure that when money is paid through Government agencies for, in particular, grass-roots sport, the burden is lifted so that people—especially volunteers—can deliver the services that we want rather than having to spend their time filling up forms and dealing with unnecessary bureaucracy?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We were elected on the same day, and in the seven or eight years since then he has continued, in a dogged and determined way, to champion local and national sport. That is, quite properly, recognised in his constituency. He is also on the ball, if I may put it like that, when it comes to the regulation of charities and voluntary and public sector organisations. It is important to lighten the load—the bureaucratic burden—and to reduce duplication, not just in the private sector but in the voluntary and charity sectors, and among those who are working on the 2012 Olympic plan.

John Redwood: Four weeks on, there is still no Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Does that not show that the Government simply are not serious about deregulation, modernising public services or cutting bureaucracy? Does it not show that the Chancellor in No. 11 is in charge, and is the roadblock to reform? Will the Minister promise us that when the Government do get around to implementing the recommendations for a reduction in the number of agencies, they will not just carry out a shuffle and a merger but will cut the costs, cut the regulations and cut the forms? Can the Minister tell us how many fewer forms there will be, how much money will have been saved and by how many million of pounds the burden will have been reduced in a year's time?

Jim Murphy: "Four weeks on, there are still no better questions" is another way of looking at the position—or "no better rant".
	We are learning the lessons of the failures of past Conservative Governments. By their own admission, the bureaucratic burden soared, and the right hon. Gentleman himself is on record as recognising detailed and strategic failings on better regulation. The Cabinet Office has consulted on a Bill on better regulation, and we will publish the outcome of that consultation shortly. Work is being done to reduce administrative burdens, and we have introduced a system enabling businesses themselves to suggest simplification measures. Within a year, each Department will present the details of simplification proposals. The Department of Trade and Industry has published a plan that will save £200 million a year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published a plan, and the Treasury has announced specific ways of reducing the bureaucratic burden.
	May I end by saying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will writeto the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

Government Workers (Redeployment)

Jim Cousins: What level of retraining and reskilling he proposes to offer to Government workers who will be redeployed.

Jim Murphy: The Government have implemented and are currently embedding a common approach to the handling of consequences of the efficiency and relocation reviews. Departments offer advice, support, retraining and reskilling to staff to help them prepare for future career moves.

Jim Cousins: At the Department for Work and Pensions alone, 14,000 jobs have gone. That affects areas such as Tyneside. We now know that it is the lowest-paid and least qualified workers who lose their jobs. The most that the Government offer those workers—and very few of them get it—is the opportunity of refresher courses. When will we see the programmes that can relaunch working lives, and build the skills and qualifications that those low-paid, loyal workers need for the future?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right: we have a responsibility both to those who are currently employed in the civil service and to folk who, as a result of the relocation agenda envisaged in the 2004 spending review, may no longer be so employed. That is why we have organised training and reskilling, and are working with recruitment organisations throughout the country.
	If my hon. Friend has specific concerns about what is happening in the DWP in the north-east, I shall be happy to meet him and discuss them or to take them up with ministerial colleagues, but the Cabinet Office has a corporate set of rules on reskilling, and isresponsible for advising Departments on their implementation.

Benefits Uprating and Welfare Reform

Stephen Timms: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on benefits uprating in the context of the Government's continued fight against poverty and our ambitious programme to renew the welfare and pensions systems.
	I shall place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report. I can confirm that most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 2.7 per cent., and that most income-related benefits will be uprated by Rossi, at 2.2 per cent.
	From next April, retirement pension will go up by £2.20 a week for single pensioners and by £3.55 a week for couples. When we were elected, the pension was just £62.45 for a single person. From April, it will be £84.25 for a single person and £134.75 for couples. That is a real-terms rise of 8 per cent. since 1997. Next year, the guarantee credit of pension credit will rise in line with earnings, so that no single pensioner need live on less than £114.05 a week and no couple on less than £174.05 a week. The threshold for the savings element of pension credit will be uprated so that it remains equal to the basic state pension. That means that a typical single pensioner will now gain from pension credit with an income of up to £158.75 a week, while a typical couple will gain on income of up to £233 a week.
	Nearly 3.3 million pensioners are now in receipt of pension credit, with an average weekly award of around £43. We are reaching more people and ensuring that they get their entitlements. Following the introduction of pension credit, about 2 million pensioner households now qualify for more help, or qualify for help for the first time, with their council tax or rent. From this week, pensioners can make a single phone call to claim all three: pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. That will be a very welcome simplification.
	By targeting resources at the least well-off pensioners, we have succeeded in lifting nearly 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty since 1997. We now spend an extra £11 billion a year on pensioners, with almost half of the extra spending going to the least well-off third. Had we simply increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, only just over a quarter of that extra spending would have gone to the least well-off third, who would have been £30 a week worse off than they are under these measures. On average, pensioner households are now £1,400 a year, or £27 a week, better off in real terms than they would have been under the 1997 system, with the least well-off third of households £1,900 a year, or £37 a week, better off in real terms.
	As well as tackling the dreadful legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited, we have also helped all pensioners and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed yesterday that the winter fuel payment would be £200 for every year of this Parliament. He also announced that he would be setting aside an additional £300 million over the next three years, so that the Government's warm front programme can offer pensioner households on pension credit free installation of central heating, and all other pensioner households without central heating a contribution of £300 towards the cost of installing it. He also announced further help with the cost of insulation. I believe that the whole House will welcome those announcements.
	We have now reached the unprecedented position in which pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society. That is a particularly remarkable achievement after a period in which earnings have grown so fast, thanks to the stability and steady growth that we have enjoyed in the economy since 1997. We need now to introduce further reform to ensure that our pensions system continues to deliver for future generations of pensioners, as it is doing for today's. So we warmly welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission's proposals and options, which were published last week. We believe that they will provide the right basis for building the consensus that we need, but there is still a great deal to be discussed and debated about the detail.
	Yesterday, I issued a challenge to the pensions industry. It believes that it can produce an industry-led model that will meet the Turner objective of enabling everyone to save for a pension at low cost, while outperforming the one proposed in the report. I have therefore asked the industry to work up the details of its alternative approach by early February, ahead of a joint national pensions debate event between industry and Government, when those proposals can be closely examined. In the same way, as we embark on a major new consultation exercise involving every section of our community, we shall scrutinise the commission proposals and options, debating the best ways to achieve the objectives that the commission set out and to deliver a lasting pensions settlement.
	If we are to meet the challenges of an ageing society and permanently eradicate poverty in retirement, we also need to address the inequalities during people's working lives. That is why our record in tackling child poverty is so important. It is why we are committed to supporting families in work, why our welfare reforms and our aspiration for an 80 per cent. employment rate are so important, and why we want to see a modern, active and inclusive welfare state. We have lifted more than half a million children out of relative low income since 1997. Twenty million people, including just over 10 million children, are benefiting from tax credits, and the child tax credit, which will also increase by earnings, is benefiting 6 million families.
	The standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay will be increased by the RPI to £108.85 a week. Whereas in 1997 the maximum maternity pay and child benefit payment for mothers at home with their first baby was just £2,610 for the first year, by 2007 it will rise to £8,300—a real-terms increase of more than £5,000. In addition, the Work and Families Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday, introduces a new entitlement to statutory paternity pay to enable a father to take time off work and to receive statutory pay instead of his partner if she returns to work early. That gives parents greater choice in how they balance their work and caring responsibilities in the first year of their child's life. For the sixth successive year, we are freezing non-dependent deductions to relieve the pressure on low-income parents who are accommodating their adult children.
	Work is the best route out of poverty. There are now more people in jobs in Britain than ever before—2.3 million more than in 1997. Unemployment is at its lowest for nearly 30 years, with long-term youth unemployment 90 per cent. lower than in 1997. In just 12 months, employment has risen by 330,000 to 28.8 million, and is the highest in the country's history. It has risen in every region and nation of the UK. The lone parent employment rate has increased by 11 percentage points since 1997, and nearly 1 million lone parents are now in work, while the number on income support has fallen by more than 200,000 since 1997.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we are not going to abolish the new deal; we will strengthen it. We will offer learning agreements for teenagers in eight areas of the country, extend the new deal pilots to help lone parents back to work, and pilot personal action plans for those unemployed for six months or more. Our new deal for disabled people has seen nearly 75,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, with 200,000 disabled people helped into work through our total package of new deal programmes.
	We are seeing very encouraging early results from the pathways to work pilots. In the first year of those, the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability almost doubled compared with the same period the year before. Their continued success has driven a significant rise in the proportion of customers leaving incapacity benefit in the first six months of their claim, compared with non-pilot areas. Overall, on a national basis, that early success would be  equivalent to about 150,000 incapacity benefit claimants being helped into work each year. That success has underpinned our achievements in helping people off incapacity benefit, with new cases now down a third since 1997 and the first falls in the total count, which fell by 41,000 in the year to May 2005.
	In March, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has put in place. It fulfilled our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, and is a major landmark in enabling disabled people to live independently, fully recognised and respected as equal members of society.
	Last week, on the international day for disabled people, we launched the new Office for Disability Issues. From this week, the Disability Discrimination Act extended protection from discrimination to another 250,000 people. However, we are not stopping there. In January, our Welfare Reform Green Paper will go further in tackling exclusion from economic activity and independence across the working-age population.
	In April, we shall take further steps to break down the barriers that face older workers. The radical tax simplification that comes into play on A-day will do much to help. The Pensions Act 2004 continues to improve the rewards for those who choose to delay taking their state pension—even for only a short period—and, in April, the first people will benefit from the new option of a lump sum for state pension deferral, which could be worth more than £5,000.
	In the spring, our White Paper will seek to lay the basis for a consensus on a lasting pensions settlement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced yesterday a change to the treatment of charitable, voluntary and personal injury income payments in income-related benefits. They are already disregarded in pension credit and pension-age housing benefit and council tax benefit. To simplify the system further and encourage the work of charities, they will be disregarded from October next year in assessing all eligibility for income support and jobseeker's allowance. There will also be a 52-week grace period for lump sum personal injury payments when assessing entitlement to income support, jobseeker's allowance and working-age housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	This year's uprating continues our commitment to promoting opportunities for the many, not the few. It contributes to our programme of reform, which balances rights with responsibilities and offers everyone the opportunity to build a decent income for their retirement. It takes another big step away from the legacy of pernicious poverty, which we are determined should never return.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of the statement.
	I imagine that many of my colleagues are somewhat preoccupied with announcements that relate not to benefits but to the Conservative party and its future. I should like to take the first opportunity in the Chamber to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his overwhelming election as leader of our great party.
	As a party, we naturally support any uprating of benefits. When the time comes, we shall not vote against them, unlike the Liberal Democrats, who memorably once voted against an uprating.
	Perhaps the Minister could tell me in his response how much more the basic state pension would be next year if it were increased in line with earnings, not prices, as my party promised at the last election.
	The statement is badged as being on welfare reform, yet, nearly nine years after the Government were first elected, we continue to hear the tired old rhetoric. The statement referred to the Government's "ambitious" programme and a "programme of radical reform", but where are those ambitious or radical proposals?
	Perhaps I can understand Ministers' natural caution. After all, when the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was appointed the first Minister responsible for welfare and pension reform, the Prime Minister told him to think the unthinkable. He was promptly sacked for doing so.
	The Government continue to dither about the reform of incapacity benefit. After a delay of many months, we are now promised a Green Paper in January. The problems of the Child Support Agency remain dire, with the recent revelation that the agency is spending more on its recovery department than it is recovering. When will Ministers decide that enough is enough? Only the other day, the Prime Minister revealed his view that root-and-branch reform was needed. I appreciate that he is less and less able to influence events, but when can we expect a statement on the CSA's future?
	As if that were not bad enough, many families throughout the land have been caused unnecessary worry by overpayments of tax credit and the insensitive pursuit of their repayment. It seems to have become a ritual on such occasions for Ministers to go on about the successes—or the alleged successes—of the new deal. It remains a stain on the Government's record that 1 million young people are not working or in education or training. When will Ministers make that tragic wasted talent a priority?
	On pensions, I should perhaps declare an interest as I have some private pension provision. The Chancellor attempted to torpedo Lord Turner's report before it was even published. In a leaked letter, he said to Lord Turner:
	"'you should not assume' that the current link of the pension credit to earnings will continue beyond 2008."
	Will the Minister confirm that pension credit will continue to be linked to earnings beyond 2008? In the part of the letter dealing with the Turner report, it was said:
	"We warmly welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission's"—
	that is, its report—
	"and we believe they are the right basis . . . But there is still a great deal to be discussed and debated about the detail."
	Presumably, that is especially with the Chancellor. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of an exercise that has taken three years and has cost £1.6 million.
	Let me ask the Minister a direct question. Can he assure the House, with an entirely straight face, that he and his right hon. Friend are approaching the Turner report with a genuinely open mind? Was all this excellent work and analysis to be discarded on the say-so of the Chancellor? Does the Minister at least accept one of Lord Turner's central conclusions: that means-testing needs to be reduced? At present, nearly half of all pensioners depend on means-tested benefits. By 2050, that proportion will have risen to more than 70 per cent. Yet there are still 1.7 million pensioners entitled to pension credit who are not claiming it. The latest figures show that despite all the money that is being spent in the form of advertising and given all the efforts of the Pension Service, take-up is hardly increasing at all.
	I shall make a prediction. I believe that, just as the Government have done with the measure of poverty or the timing of the economic cycle, they are about to move the goal post on their previously stated targets for pension credit and announce that in reality, the actual target should always have been lower. That is the Government's preferred method of tackling a difficult problem—just change the target or the methodology. We know that the take-up for other benefits, such as council tax benefit, is even more lamentable. The latest statistics show that in 2002–03 alone, pensioners were failing to claim up to £2.9 billion in means-tested benefits. No wonder 2 million pensioners are still living in poverty.
	Only yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that the payment to help older people pay their council tax bills was a one-off for one year only. As it turned out, that was election year. Despite the amounts spent on local government finance, many councils, especially in the south-east, are predicting further sharp rises in council tax in addition to the massive rises that are already being suffered under the Government. Do Ministers not realise the terror that many pensioners have of receiving a council tax demand or a utility bill?
	How can we ensure that older people keep warm when gas prices, especially, are soaring? The Government's lack of an energy policy is as glaringly apparent as their lack of a pensions policy. In its comments on yesterday's announcements, Age Concern referred to winter fuel payments, which it welcomes. It referred to the fact that, sadly, 31,000 pensioners died last winter as a result of the cold. It added that
	"the Government needs to reform the basic state pension so that all pensioners know that they will have enough money in their pockets to pay their basic costs."
	The growth in dependency on the state does not seem to bother the Chancellor. Does it bother the Minister, perhaps, that across British society as a whole, one third of households now rely on the state for more than half their income? If it does not bother him, it should.
	Does it not add insult to injury to those in the private sector, and those who have no occupational pension, that the public sector are to enjoy the same pension terms, including retirement at 60 or even earlier, for the next 40 years?
	Will the Minister tell the House where we are on error and fraud in the system? According to the Public Accounts Committee, about £3 billion a year could be lost through fraud and error.
	Yesterday's statement, and the reaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Lord Turner's report, proves—if proof were still needed—that it is the present incumbent of No. 11 who is the roadblock to reform in the welfare system, as well as across the whole of public services. For far too long the Department of Work and Pensions has behaved like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Treasury. Is it not high time that Ministers started to come up with some ideas of their own for welfare reform?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the uprating of the basic state pension. I have not been able to do the calculation that he asked about, but I can tell him that, as a result of this announcement, the basic state pension has risen since 1997 by 8 per cent. in real terms, as opposed to 1.7 per cent. after 18 years under the previous Government, so those who are concerned to have a higher basic state pension would do well to support the Labour party, rather than the party that he represents.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the radical reform of the welfare system. That is why the number of people in work is up by 2 million. That is why we have been able to lift 2 million pensioners out of poverty since 1997 and consigned abject pensioner poverty to the history books. Those are dramatic, radical and important changes, and we are determined to build on them in the next phase of welfare reform.
	I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that, in our response to the Turner commission, we do have a genuinely open mind. Nothing has been ruled in or out by the Government. The hon. Gentleman asked me that question directly and I give him that answer directly. We will bring back proposals in the spring, which I hope will be on the basis of as broad a consensus as possible across the House and across the country.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about additional help for 16 and 17-year-olds to move into work. I hope as well, given the points that the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago, that he welcomed the announcements about the expansion of the warm front programme to help pensioners to install central heating and installation. All those announcements directly address the issues that he raised.
	The hon. Gentleman has a point about the rather low take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. That is why the Pension Service is ringing up pensioners in receipt of pension credit to encourage and help them to apply for council tax benefit and housing benefit if they are entitled to them, in order that we can increase the take-up of those benefits among those who are entitled to them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about public sector pensions. It is worth making the point that, in not much more than 10 years, the number of people in public sector schemes with a pension age of 65 will more than halve, so the agreement that has been reached on public sector pensions will lead to substantial changes much more quickly than some people have realised. I think that that puts into perspective the point that he made about that.
	On error and fraud, the extent of fraud has gone down by two thirds since 1997 in the most vulnerable benefits: income support and jobseeker's allowance. That is welcome progress. When the Conservative party was in office it did not even measure the extent of the problem. We have made dramatic progress.

Frank Field: Does the Minister accept the Opposition's line that large numbers of pensioners are eligible for but not claiming the additional help with pension credit? Does he share the experience that I have? I find almost no one in Birkenhead who for any length of time is eligible and not claiming pension credit. Has not that benefit proved itself to be extremely effective in channelling help to our poorest pensioners? Is not the problem one of long-term sustainability rather than non-take-up? One cannot run a free society by budgeting for 75 per cent. of pensioners being on means tests, and one is unlikely to get elected if it costs 13p on the standard rate of tax to deliver that benefit. Does not that make his comment about consulting about the Turner commission report that much more important? While every hon. Member welcomes the announcement that the Government are talking to people outside the House, might they talk to people inside the House and might he ask the normal channels for a debate on the Adjournment, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can give their views on that important report?

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend's characterisation of the position regarding the pension credit is much fairer than that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). It is true that some people who are entitled to pension credit are not yet receiving it, but it looks as though the total number eligible is rather less than we first thought, which has doubtless had an effect. Of course, some of those entitled to but not receiving pension credit are entitled to rather small amounts. The evidence is that the overwhelming majority of those entitled to substantial amounts are receiving it, which is why it is having such a big impact.
	I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that the pension credit has been an extremely effective intervention in addressing the problem of long-term pensioner poverty, effectively making abject poverty a thing of the past. I would welcome a debate along the lines he suggests, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Such discussions are doubtless under way as we speak.

Danny Alexander: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving us advance sight of the statement, many aspects of which Liberal Democrats welcome. In the light of recent leaks to the press, we particularly welcome the news that the pension credit will continue to be uprated in line with earnings. Does he agree that, whatever the Chancellor may have said in advance of Lord Turner's report, it would be unthinkable for a Labour Government to break the link between the pension credit and earnings? Will he confirm that continued uprating of the credit in line with earnings over the long term is shown by the Treasury to be a reasonable assumption in the table on page 39 of the long-term public finance report published yesterday? Does he therefore agree that Lord Turner's proposals represent an affordable alternative to the progressive expansion of means-testing? As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said a few moments ago, the choice is therefore between a sustainable scheme and one that is unsustainable in the long term. We also welcome the uprating of many other benefits, and I congratulate the Minister on continuing the freezing of non-dependent deductions.
	The Minister says that 3.3 million pensioners are in receipt of the pension credit. How many are entitled to it but are not receiving it? The state pension will increase by £2.20 a week, but how much of that will be consumed by council tax rises in the coming year? Does this not highlight the need for a decent state pension for everybody as a guarantee against poverty? We should not be content to celebrate the fact that pensioners are now merely no more likely to be poor than anyone else in society.
	I welcome the Minister's decision to look at an industry alternative to the national pension savings scheme suggested by Lord Turner, but does he agree that, to be viable, the cost of such a private sector scheme must be at, or under, the level set by Lord Turner for the state-backed scheme? Although it is important to ensure that benefits are uprated fairly, is it not also important to ensure that they are delivered effectively?
	In last year's corresponding statement, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said:
	"Our reforms through Jobcentre Plus have been remarkable."—[Official Report, 6 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 912.]
	Does the Minister agree that they have indeed been remarkable—for the range of serious problems that claimants now face in getting their money, whether uprated or not? It is now taking an average of 13.5 days to clear a jobseeker's allowance claim, compared with the target of 12 days, and nine centres have returned to manual processing. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that claimants can get their benefit by the time today's uprating comes into effect?
	The Minister will also be aware that a very cold winter is forecast, so it is disappointing that no provision has been made for extending the winter fuel payment to severely disabled people, as we proposed in our manifesto. Will he re-examine this proposal, which recognises the additional costs and problems for severely disabled people arising from cold winter weather?
	We welcome confirmation that a statement on welfare reform will be made next January, the encouraging signs coming from the pathways to work pilots, and the proposed increase in back-to-work support for lone parents. However, the Minister said nothing about the welfare reform desperately sought by families throughout the land: reform of the failing and discredited Child Support Agency. Will he confirm that a statement will be made on this issue by the end of the year, as previously promised by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
	The inclusion of the words "welfare reform" in the title of this statement may have caused a frisson of excitement in some parts of the House that eight years of waiting for serious proposals on welfare reform were perhaps about to be brought to an end this afternoon. I note from the Chancellor's statement yesterday that the money raised from the windfall tax to pay for welfare to work has now all been spent. When welfare reform proposals are made in January, will the Minister ensure that, despite the tightening fiscal position, they are properly funded, so that the 1 million or more incapacity benefit recipients who would like to work again are not once more disappointed by this Government?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Member for welcoming the freezing of non-dependent deductions, which his predecessors did consistently over the past few years. It is an area on which we have agreed. The earnings link for pension credit has proved an effective tool for reducing pensioner poverty. As he knows, the commitment to maintain that uprating lasts until 2008. Beyond that, the Chancellor will make announcements in due course, although the hon. Gentleman is right that the illustrative figures in the pre-Budget report reflect the uprating continuing. Whether that will happen in practice is a matter for the Chancellor to announce.
	I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention—the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) may also be interested, given what he said earlier—to what the Turner commission report said about means-testing. Page 188 states:
	"A significant improvement in actual and perceived incentives for the majority of people of current working age can be achieved by limiting the future spread of means-testing".
	That was the concern in the report, rather than the immediate elimination of or drastic reduction in means-testing. It is important that we recognise that thrust in the report. It is important that proposals for pension reform should be affordable, and that is one of the tests set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming the Turner commission report last week.
	The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) mentioned the impact of the council tax on pensioners, and it is important that we make further progress in increasing the take-up of council tax benefit. It is important that an alternative, industry-led, low-cost personal account pension scheme should be comparable in terms of cost and in other ways to the national pension saving scheme suggested in the Turner report, and that is the basis on which we will evaluate the proposals. There are two prospects, and I have asked the industry to produce its proposals by February, so there may be others. We will pragmatically evaluate the alternatives, looking at the cost and at other issues, including the impact on business, which will be important.
	We are improving the bedding down of the new systems for jobseeker's allowance and we have seen much progress. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement on the Child Support Agency shortly—either later this month or early in the new year.
	The hon. Gentleman looks forward to the Green Paper on the new deal, which is due in January. I hope that his party will support the increasing and active role that we envisage for the state in helping people back into work. His party has always pledged to abolish the new deal and remove the extra help that has been so effective. I hope that the tone of his remarks reflects some new thinking in his party and that we will be able to agree on the tremendous attractions of a more active role for the state in helping people back into work.

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend said that the best way out of poverty is through jobs—a welcome contrast to the old Tory practice of throwing people on to incapacity benefit to reduce the dole queues. The fall in the number of people claiming IB is welcome, but will my hon. Friend confirm that it has been achieved by incentivising the pathway back into work? Will he therefore reject a proposal from any source that incapacity benefit should be reduced in a punitive attempt to get people back to work, which would reflect the old Tory methodology, not Labour values?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I agree. That is why there has been so much support for our approach among organisations representing disabled people. The Green Paper will be about giving people extra help to allow them to get into work. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the pathways areas are seeing double the number of recorded job entries compared to other areas. The pilots are working well to help incapacity benefit customers into work. They have been popular in those areas and we want to expand that approach across the country.

Hywel Williams: Given the Chancellor's welcome but belated U-turn on tax relief to buy second homes for pension funds, will the Minister confirm that in the great pensions debate the whole question of tax relief on pensions, which is unduly weighted towards higher rate taxpayers, will be ruled in, or will it be set aside somehow?

Stephen Timms: As I said earlier, nothing is being ruled in or out and we shall be interested in any suggestions that the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends make, although I draw his attention to the points made in the Turner report about the difficulties involved in radical change. However, if he has some proposals I should be interested in seeing them.

Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Government and local authorities such as mine in Waltham Forest on their important efforts to improve entitlement take-up, but a huge number of people still do not receive their entitlement. Now that partnership teams have been rolled out in many areas, will my hon. Friend make a change so that they can make allocations to people who are entitled and that each case does not have to go back to a central agency to be worked out? Will he undertake to look at a possible policy change whereby people who are entitled can receive their money whether they claim or not? It is not just that they are stubborn—they may have early dementia or all sorts of other problems. Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a look at that?

Stephen Timms: Yes. We are doing a lot in exactly the direction advocated by my hon. Friend. There is a good joint team in Waltham Forest, the area that he represents. I have visited the team and had a look at its work; it is a particularly effective example. We are considering delegating a greater role to people other than staff in our Department, including enabling voluntary sector organisations to validate documents and check claims, thereby taking on some of the work that has had to be done in the Department in the past. I agree that it would be helpful to move in that direction. I also agree that we should increasingly be moving towards making payments automatic, if we are able to do so. That, of course, depends on our being able to access data that may not be in the systems that the Department uses, but there is much potential. My hon. Friend is on to something important and we are looking actively at it.

Angela Browning: Will the Minister take a look at the fact that people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder are required to claim incapacity benefit? Before the Government abolished severe disablement allowance and replaced it with incapacity benefit, there was recognition of the fact that such people are born with that condition and will almost certainly die with it. I do not say for one minute that there should not be every opportunity to help them get into work if possible, but at present they have to go to their GP every two or three months just to prove that they still have the condition with which they were born. That is rather cruel and unnecessary. Will the Minister look into it?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I should be happy to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although, like the hon. Lady, I want to underline the importance of not writing anybody off, and not assuming that some people will be unable to work. She makes a fair point and I shall certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Angela Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being part of a Government who ended the historic link between poverty and old age—a truly magnificent achievement. May I, in the same vein, ask him to provide us with a few more details on the warm homes grant extensions, particularly for the installation of central heating in the properties of pension credit recipients who do not have such heating? Will applications have to be made, or will attempts be made to reach such properties and ensure a more automatic system?

Stephen Timms: I welcome what my hon. Friend says and I agree with her. The announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made yesterday will be taken forward through the existing warm front programme, which, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, in many areas has been very active in going out to people and encouraging them to take up their entitlements. The scheme will provide free installation of central heating for households on pension credit who do not have it, and for other households not on pension credit there will be a contribution of £300 towards the cost of installing it. I agree about the need to work hard and ensure that people are aware of that opportunity, which represents a major breakthrough and a major improvement in the way we address the problem of heating for those who are above pensionable age.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) mentioned Liberal Democrats voting against the benefit uprating; he may remember that it was the infamous 75p pension uprating, and we would do the same if the Minister proposed it again.
	May I bring the Minister back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), which I do not think he responded to? My hon. Friend asked whether the Government had considered extending the winter fuel payment to severely disabled people. While the Minister is replying to that, he may also reply to the point about whether the warm front scheme extends to severely disabled people.

Stephen Timms: First, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the retirement pension will go up by £2.20 a week on this occasion, which I am sure he will welcome.
	We have received a number of representations asking for the availability of winter fuel payments to be extended. We do not propose to do so. Disability living allowance helps to defray the additional costs of disability, which might include heating. The warm front schemes help people other than those above state pension age, but the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made yesterday were specifically about people who are above state pension age.

Gordon Prentice: Am I the only one to be astonished at the dismissive way in which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) brushed aside the statement made by my Friend that pensioners are no more likely to be poor now than any other people in society, which I think is a remarkable achievement?
	Council tax can be a very heavy burden for pensioners on modest fixed incomes who do not receive the pension credit. Now that the review of council tax has been abandoned, will my Friend tell me whether there is any fresh thinking within the Government on how pensioners of modest means can cope with above-inflation council tax rises?

Stephen Timms: I am sure that my hon. Friend will very much welcome the additional payment being made this year to help with council tax. I do not think that it is right to say that the review has been abolished; work is continuing that will contribute to the outcome of the forthcoming spending review. I anticipate that an announcement will be made in the Budget about whether additional payments will be made in future years.

Philip Hollobone: Although I appreciate the Government's noble intentions on the reduction of child poverty, will the Minister confirm the number of children whom he estimates remain in absolute poverty? Has he had a chance to see today's press reports that quote research from Save the Children that, despite their best efforts, the Government are unlikely to meet their target to eliminate child poverty by 2020?

Stephen Timms: We are on track to hit our first milestone, which was to reduce child poverty by a quarter by last year. We will know the details of that by the spring. That is a welcome step forward, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman supports the aim that we have set out. I agree that it is a very important aim, and we are determined to make further progress. We have already succeeded in arresting and reversing the long-term trend of rising child poverty. By 2003–04, about 500,000 fewer children were in low-income households compared with 1998–99. We are determined to maintain that progress towards our target of abolishing child poverty by 2020.

Point of Order

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, you know that Foreign Affairs questions are due to be answered after the recess, on 10 January. There is a great deal of concern among many people, including hon. Members, about the possibility—indeed, the reports—that the United States is using UK facilities to transport terror suspects around the country. There are also allegations about interrogation centres, or torture centres, in various parts of Europe, although reports do not state that they are located in Britain. It would be useful if, before we break for the Christmas recess, the Foreign Secretary came to the Chamber to make a statement and answer questions.
	May I make a final point to you, Mr. Speaker? I am not allowed, as you know, to refer to any internal House of Commons matter, but I thought that, when the procedure changed a few years ago, the wish was that it should be possible broadly to raise topical and urgent matters on the Floor of the House pretty promptly. As matters stand, the Foreign Secretary is not due to answer questions until 10 January. Such things are reported widely in newspapers and on television and radio, yet we cannot discuss them in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's experience goes back a long way. In fact, he and I first came into the House on the same day. He will know that private notice questions are now called urgent questions, but the granting of such questions remains at the Speaker's discretion. Of course, I will not go into why I refused him an urgent question. Given his vast experience as a parliamentarian, he knows that, if he wishes to bring the Foreign Secretary or an Under-Secretary before the House, he can apply for an Adjournment debate. That would be a nice way of doing things. Again, the Speaker has some discretion in those matters, and there is a very fair ballot indeed.

Employment (Advertisement of Pay and Pension Rights)

John Denham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all employment vacancies to be advertised with a combined valuation of pay and pension rights; and for connected purposes.
	Having been a Member for some time, I appreciate the way in which the ten-minute Bill procedure enables Members to make proposals that do not claim to revolutionise or transform our way of life but merely aim simply and practically to make things a bit better. I make no more claim for this Bill than that—a simple, practical and small change that would make pensions a bit better.
	When I first sought a date to introduce the Bill, I did not realise that it would follow so quickly after the excellent Pensions Commission report. I was understandably nervous that my fox might be shot before today arrived. In fact, I am confident that the Bill would work effectively to support the Pensions Commission's recommendations. This is not the time to rehearse the detail of Lord Turner's proposals, but, as everyone now knows, he proposes a sensible balance between tax-funded, state-paid pensions, sufficient to lift most people out of means-testing, and invested pensions.
	Even if—or, as I hope, when—the basic framework of the Turner report is implemented, state pension provision will lift most men and women only just above the basic level of pension income means-testing. A comfortable retirement will depend on the size of their second pension. My concern today is to support invested pensions and Turner's aim of encouraging
	"the maintenance of existing high quality pension provision"
	through which employers provide more generous contributions than those in the proposed soft compulsion scheme.
	The first report of the Pensions Commission showed that good quality employer pension provision is on the decline. It estimated that active membership of defined benefit schemes had fallen by 60 per cent. since 1995. It found that although a quarter of private sector employees were still members of salary-related schemes, only 14 per cent. of new employees were in such schemes. The report concluded:
	"Rolling these trends forward, and even if the rate of closure now slows considerably,"
	defined benefit
	"scheme membership is likely to become a primarily public sector phenomenon."
	Of course, when defined benefit schemes are closed, they are usually replaced by defined contribution schemes of one sort or another. Overall, Turner's judgment was that membership of employer provision was flat, or perhaps declining. However, it is clear that the average employer contribution to defined schemes is much lower than that to traditional defined benefit or final salary schemes. Employer contributions to defined benefit schemes were estimated at about 11 to 14 per cent. of salary, whereas such contributions to defined contribution schemes were about 4 to 7 per cent. Despite that downward trend, it is clear that employees with any employer contribution to their scheme are general much better placed than those with none.
	We could debate the reasons for the decline in the best quality pensions at some length. There are many factors, and as a former Minister with responsibility for pensions I would have to include among them well-meaning regulation passed by Governments of both parties in response to the fears and concerns of our constituents. However, probably the most important factor is simply the changing nature of the competitive economy. The type of larger company that traditionally provided a good pension scheme is in long-term decline. It might be that the best final salary schemes never made hard, bottom-line economic sense, but such schemes were widely seen as part of companies' corporate social responsibility. By having such schemes, those companies made a significant contribution to not only their own success, but the wider economy.
	Today's economic environment is much harsher and more globally competitive. Although many employers still understand the mixture of altruistic, paternalistic and self-interested arguments for good pension schemes, they are increasingly likely to be challenged by shareholders and accountants. In a competitive economy, some companies compete for business by cutting pension provision, or not making any provision at all. As always, the worst can drive down the standards of the rest.
	We will still need good employer provision, even when Turner is implemented. The Pensions Commission report makes it clear that its proposals for state pensions and the soft compulsion of the national pension savings scheme would give average earners pensions of just under half their salary when they retire—and that would be at the older retirement age. If people want to receive traditional benefits such as those from a final salary scheme, or if they want a pension that is big enough to allow them to take early retirement, or a less pressured or part-time job before they get their state pension, they or their employers will need to make additional contributions.
	If we want to retain the best employer provision that we can, we need to examine new ways to encourage and support good employer provision over and above the minimum that all employers should be required to do. We need to look at ways in which employers can see a clear business case—a clear labour market advantage—from a good pension scheme. That is precisely what the Bill is intended to do. It aims to make the value of employer pension contributions explicit to potential employees. By doing so, it will give better employers an edge in the labour market.
	Most people simply do not realise how much a good employer's pension scheme can add to the value of a job. As a result, the quality of pension provision appears to play little role in determining the attractiveness of an employer to potential employees. However, it should, and this Bill would help to ensure that it did.
	Let us consider a job that would normally be advertised at an average salary of about £24,000 a year. According to Union Pension Services, a good typical final salary scheme is worth an extra £3,400 in employer contributions each year, so the job would be advertised not at £24,000, but at £27,400, which is an increase of 14 per cent. A typical public sector final salary scheme—of course these are now closed to new entrants, but I had to do these calculations on the figures available—is worth about an extra £2,900 in employer contributions, so the job would be advertised at a combined value of £26,900. A typical money purchase scheme is worth an extra £1,200 in employer contributions, so the job would be advertised at a combined value of £25,200. In comparison, a job that paid £24,000 a year where the employee is in the state second pension scheme but receives no additional contribution would be advertised at £24,000. For information purposes, a self-employed person would need to receive about £24,700 a year to gain the same financial benefit as an employee in the state second pension.
	The Bill is a small practical step that will reward good employers by helping them to recruit and retain staff. It will make sure that the best employers can easily be identified by potential employees. It will also help to guard against the danger of the 3 per cent. employer contribution to the national pension savings scheme proposed by Turner becoming the standard employer contribution, rather than the baseline or a minimum. Any lasting pension reform will require a good deal of consensus across parties and outside the House, so I am pleased that my Bill has cross-party support. I pleased, too, that it has received the support of the National Association of Pension Funds—the leading voice of workplace pension provision in the UK. There are 10 million working people in NAPF member schemes, and about 5 million pensioners receive retirement income from such schemes. The NAPF chief executive, Christine Farnish, said:
	"Millions of people are building up valued pension entitlements through workplace pension schemes. But there remains a lack of understanding among many about just how valuable a good pension scheme can be.
	The new Bill would give employers with good pension schemes a deserved advantage in the labour market, and enable prospective employees to get a clear picture, in pounds and pence, of the value of the pension on offer.
	People are becoming more aware of the value of a good pension when it comes to making job decisions. This Bill would help in making those decisions easier."
	Age Concern, too, has welcomed the Bill and has referred to research from the Labour Research Department showing that more information about company pension schemes was the most common demand from people who have not yet joined a scheme.
	Of course, the Bill would not place any additional burden on employers. I envisage that a standard actuarial approach would be agreed across the economy and that guidance to employers on the calculation of benefits would be provided each time the scheme is revalued. This is not a revolutionary Bill but it is a small, practical step that would make some improvement to pensions, so I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Denham, Ms Sally Keeble, Rob Marris, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr.   Richard Benyon, Chris Huhne, Mr. Frank Field, Huw Irranca-Davies, Nick Herbert and Mr. Philip Dunne.

Employment (Advertisement of Pay and Pension Rights)

Mr. John Denham accordingly presented a Bill to require all employment vacancies to be advertised with a combined valuation of pay and pension rights; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 93].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	London Olympics Bill

[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 18th   October, 25th October and 1st November, on London Olympics: First Steps, HC 552-i, -ii and -iii, Session 2005–06.]
	As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Olympic Delivery Authority: Transfer Schemes

'(1)   In this section "transfer scheme" means a scheme providing for the transfer to the Olympic Delivery Authority of specified property, rights and liabilities of a person specified in subsection (3) at a time specified in the scheme.
	(2)   If the Secretary of State thinks it expedient in order to enable the Authority to carry out its functions, he may direct a person specified in subsection (3) to make a transfer scheme and submit it to him.
	(3)   Those persons are—
	(a)   the Greater London Authority,
	(b)   the London Development Agency, and
	(c)   Transport for London.
	(4)   If the Secretary of State directs a person to make and submit a transfer scheme—
	(a)   the person shall comply with the direction,
	(b)   the Secretary of State may approve the scheme with or without modification, and
	(c)   if approved, the scheme shall have effect.
	(5)   A direction of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) shall specify a date by which the transfer scheme is to be submitted.
	(6)   The Secretary of State may make a transfer scheme if—
	(a)   a person fails to comply with a direction under subsection (2), or
	(b)   the Secretary of State decides not to approve a scheme submitted under that subsection.
	(7)   A transfer scheme made under subsection (6) shall have effect.
	(8)   The Secretary of State may not approve or make a transfer scheme unless—
	(a)   he has consulted—
	(i)   the person who submitted or should have submitted the scheme,
	(ii)   the Olympic Delivery Authority, and
	(iii)   any other person who in his opinion may be affected by the scheme, and
	(b)   the Mayor of London consents.
	(9)   Schedule [Transfer Schemes] (which makes supplementary provision in connection with transfer schemes) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Transfer Schemes.

Richard Caborn: New clause 3 and new schedule 1 are needed to make the transfer of contracts to the Olympic delivery authority a quick and efficient process. In advance of the ODA being set up, the London Development Agency and Transport for London have been driving forward the work to deliver the games. We are grateful for that work, but a complication has developed as those authorities have had to enter into the first major contracts. Once the ODA is set up, those contracts and some of the equipment and people involved will have to be transferred to the ODA—the body that will ultimately deliver the Olympics.
	Transferring a large number of individual contracts can be a lengthy and costly process. We want to avoid any unnecessary cost or delay. Where the Secretary of State thinks it necessary, the amendments allow for the creation of transfer schemes, which will ensure that contracts are efficiently moved from authorities such as the London Development Agency or Transport for London to the Olympic delivery authority. The Secretary of State may make a scheme if others have not complied with a direction or if their scheme has not been approved.
	Using transfer schemes means that batches of contracts can be moved, requiring a single negotiation process rather than many individual ones. The Secretary of State will not be able to approve or make a scheme unless she has consulted the person who submitted it, or ought to have submitted it, the ODA and anyone who may be affected by it. She will also have to obtain the consent of the Mayor.
	Transfer schemes are usual practice when setting up a new public body that takes over specific responsibilities from another public body. For example, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 used a similar process to transfer contracts to the GLA and TFL from predecessor bodies.

Hugh Robertson: As this is the first group of amendments on Report, I begin by thanking the Minister for extending the courtesy of a briefing for myself and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the amendments tabled since the Committee stage. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pass on my thanks to his civil servants who were responsible for that briefing and for other aspects of the Bill?
	New clause 3 and new schedule 1 allow for the creation of transfer schemes to move contracts across from the Greater London Authority, the London Development Agency and Transport for London to the Olympic delivery authority. If the Secretary of State believes that it will best serve the ability of the ODA to carry out its functions, he or she may direct any of those bodies to make a transfer scheme.
	I wholly accept that a single body is needed to manage public sector investment in staging the games if we are to be best placed to deliver the games on time and to budget. The ODA creates a single point of contact for various public sector organisations involved in the delivery of those games. However, as the new clause has been moved since the Committee stage, will the Minister answer a number of points when he winds up?
	First, what safeguards are in place to look after the interests of the originators of those contracts? Secondly, how will accountability be preserved once the transfer is effected from an elected body such as the GLA to the ODA? Finally, how can the House continue to exercise scrutiny? Subject to the Minister's reassurances on those three points, I am happy to signal my party's support.

Don Foster: I join the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) in thanking the Minister and his civil servants for the very helpful briefings that we have had in preparation for the moving of these and other amendments. I also thank the Minister and the hon. Gentleman for the close co-operation that there has been in relation to almost all aspects of the Bill, which means that there will be a fairly uncontroversial passage of much of what is to be debated this evening. However, the debate is an opportunity to raise remaining questions with the Minister. In view of the fact that a number of the powers of the GLA will be passed on to other bodies if the new clause and new schedule are agreed, will the Minister answer some further questions, in addition to those asked by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent?
	First, I seek the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the GLA will be one of the organisations that are to be consulted on the Olympic transport plan, which is the subject of clause 9. Secondly, will the GLA be able to summons the ODA to public evidence sessions? What assurance can the Minister give that the GLA will be able to use section 61 of the Greater London Authority Act to summon the ODA in the way that I described? Finally, can the Minister provide an assurance that LOCOG—the London organising committee of the Olympic games—the other body being established by the Bill, will also have to comply with any reasonable request to appear before the assembly and to update the assembly on progress? With those assurances from the Minister, I can confirm that my party, too, is willing to support the amendments.

Richard Caborn: I will pass on the thanks of the two hon. Gentlemen to my staff. Although there have been some disagreements, we have been able to resolve them in a fairly civilised way. I have no doubt that there will be votes on some of the politically contentious issues later this evening, but the Bill's progress shows how the nation has got behind the Olympic bid. We were awarded the Olympics on 6 July, and hopefully we can get the Bill through Parliament by early next year, which shows the strength of cross-party support.
	The consultation process will be transparent and it will involve the Mayor's office and the originators. Anyone who wants to raise an objection will be able to do so. On accountability, the elected authority is accountable to the ODA, the ODA is responsible to the Olympic board and the Olympic board is responsible to the Secretary of State and this House. On scrutiny, six Select Committees are currently considering different aspects of the Olympics, and I am appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee tomorrow. I assure hon. Members that a lot of scrutiny is going on.

Andrew Pelling: The assembly will have a role in deciding the impost on the London council tax payer, but will the Minister reassure us that it can expect the ODA to appear before it, if it has additional questions? Will such an extra layer of scrutiny be allowed?

Richard Caborn: Yes, it will. I have no doubt that the ODA will want to make sure that its work is in the public domain and that it attracts a consensus.
	I think that the answer is yes on the question of a public session with the ODA, but I will probably write to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to clarify the matter.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Limit on Power of Greater London Authority to Raise Money from Council Tax for Expenditure on London Olympics

'The Greater London Authority shall not raise more than £625 million from the council tax for expenditure in connection with the London Olympics.'. —[Hugh Robertson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 23, line 35 [Clause 33], at end insert—
	'(2A)   The Greater London Authority shall not raise more than £625 million from the council tax for the purpose of exercising the function under subsection (1).'.

Hugh Robertson: The amendment and the new clause were tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
	Let us be very clear about what is involved here. When a bid was first considered, the Government and the Mayor agreed a funding package of £2.375 billion to help meet the costs of staging the Olympics in London in 2012. That figure was made up of £1.5 billion from the lottery, 50 per cent. of which will come from existing sources and 50 per cent. from the new Olympic lottery games, £250 million from the London Development Agency and £625 million from London council tax payers.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech and thank him for indicating that I support the amendment and the new clause. Will he confirm that in the agreement with the Mayor of London, the £625 million to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was made up of £550 million and a further £75 million, which may be drawn on only if it is necessary do so?

Hugh Robertson: The Olympic surcharge will start in April 2006, and Londoners will pay between £13.33 for a band A dwelling and £40 for band H. Some 69 per cent. of Londoners are in bands A to D and they will pay between £13.33 and £20.00, and 31 per cent. will pay between £24.44 and £40.00.
	As Conservatives, we entirely support the principle that Londoners should make a contribution to the financing of the games. There are four main reasons for that. London is the host city, so it is likely to benefit most from tourism and promotion; London businesses will undoubtedly benefit enormously; the east end of London will be regenerated; and Londoners will have the world's greatest sporting event on their doorstep. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that they should make a financial contribution over and above the remainder of the United Kingdom. In short, we accept the figure of £625 million and signed up to it at the time of the bid.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right about his party. He will know that others of us who participated in the same election took the same position. Londoners were very happy to make a contribution over and above that made elsewhere, but they kept asking the question to which the amendment and new clause relate: will it be limited to that amount or open-ended? Unless we made it clear that it should be limited, they were not nearly as enthusiastic.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I think that he will reassured by what I am about to say.
	It is fair to say that although we accepted the £625 million cost right from the outset, we—and, clearly, the Liberal Democrats—have had concerns about the possible effect on London council tax payers. The new tax will simply take the form of a larger levy on council tax bills, so it is not entirely transparent. There is no automatic cut-off after 2012. The extra money is not specifically ring-fenced for the Olympics, in obvious contrast to the congestion charge, where revenue is ring-fenced for value-for-money transport projects. There is no guarantee that the money will not be used to cross-subsidise funding shortfalls elsewhere—for example, if not enough tickets are sold.
	Those initial concerns have been given further impetus by a number of factors that have become apparent in recent months and that have changed the position substantially since the initial plans for London 2012 were drawn up. First, we now know that previous games have substantially overrun their budgets. Local tax payers in Montreal are still paying off debts incurred at the 1976 Olympics. Sydney's budget of £l billion eventually came to £2.8 billion. Athens' budget of £l billion eventually became, as far as we know, £5 billion.
	Secondly, security costs are likely to soar post-7 July. There cannot be a single Member of this House here today who genuinely believes that the international security situation will improve in the near future. If anything, it is likely to get worse.

Chris Bryant: When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I served, first considered security, everybody was aware not only of the possible threat in Athens, where British security forces and police played an important role in ensuring the security of the games, but of the fact that there was already a heavy underwriting in terms of security measures. I do not think that, of itself, July this year will have made a significant difference. Does the hon. Gentleman have specific arguments on that?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, indeed I do. If one looks around London, it is fairly self-evident that security has been tightened immeasurably since 7 July, and rightly so—every Member would support that. I think that the security allowance in the Bill is £200 million. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

Richard Caborn: It is £213 million.

Hugh Robertson: Given today's security situation, I cannot see how London can be kept entirely secure within that budget.
	Thirdly, the Mayor has been commendably honest about the fact that his key aim is to regenerate the east end of London. That is not entirely compatible with the Government's priority of delivering the 2012 Olympics on time and to budget as the best games ever. Those conflicting priorities will inevitably put pressure on the budget. Fourthly, the cost of acquiring land in the lower Lea valley, and therefore of site assembly, has risen substantially since we won the bid on 6 July. Finally, as scrutiny of the financial markets shows, inflation in the construction sector is running at about 7 per cent. as a result of rising energy prices and the increased cost of raw materials. Natural disasters in the USA and Asia, allied to high demand in China, have rendered the original 3 per cent. prediction unworkable.
	All Members know of the concern already felt by many of their constituents about rising council tax bills. They affect everyone, but particularly the elderly—who have no way of increasing their income to cope—and the vulnerable. We were happy to accept the original £625 million figure, although we had some worries about the lack of accountability. Since the plans were drawn up, however, the five factors that I have listed have led us to believe that Londoners should not be left with an open-ended commitment. Accordingly, I believe that the time has come to introduce a formal mechanism to ensure that Londoners receive a measure of protection.
	Let me end with two pleas. First, I ask all London Members to consider a new clause that simply gives a statutory basis to the Government's own estimate of the cost of the games to council tax payers, and to support it. If they do not do so, they will risk inflicting a considerable extra bill on their constituents.

Andy Reed: So far, the hon. Gentleman has told us why London council tax payers should not make a larger contribution. If London council tax payers did not make the contribution, someone else would have to do so. Which of the other funding bodies does the hon. Gentleman think should do it?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is difficult for me to give him an answer. Every time we have asked the question, the Minister has said—as I expect him to say in 20 minutes' time; indeed, he told me that he would do so—that the budget for the games was drawn up according to the most advanced formula ever and that there would be no cost overruns. If that is the case, let us flip the argument over—why should there not be a cap?

Andrew Pelling: Mary Reilly, chair of the London Development Agency, said in the Financial Times that the estimate of the cost of cleaning the land on which the games would take place had already doubled, which means an increase of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Hugh Robertson: Indeed; Mary Reilly made that point when she appeared before the Select Committee two weeks ago.
	My second plea, on which I have touched already, is to the Minister. Although the new clause has cross-party support, it is perfectly possible that the Bill will be defeated in the other place, which will delay it. We are, after all, simply trying to give the Government's own calculations a statutory basis. Therefore I do not hesitate to urge the Minister and the House to accept the new clause.

Andy Reed: Having heard what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) had to say, I have an opportunity to go a little further. I appreciate that many London Members, among others, will have a view on the level of council tax payments to the fund, but, as I said before, if the money does not come from London council tax payers, where is it to come from? The new clause makes no mention of that, which is why I offered the hon. Gentleman a chance to tell us.
	I am quite confident about the £2.3 billion package, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm it. The figures that make up the package, which had cross-party support when we went to Singapore, represent a built-in flexibility based on the understanding that projects such as this always involve a cost overrun. The package assumes a potentially large overrun and builds in flexibility at a level that I consider acceptable.
	I hope that the new clause will be rejected on the basis that, as I have said, it does not tell us where the rest of the contribution will come from. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am already anxious about the amount that will have to come from existing lottery funds. I should be more anxious if, as a result of the new clause, more money had to come from funds for grass-roots sport or other lottery contributions.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman, like me, is worried about the amount that we are raising from the national lottery to fund the Olympics. I suggest, however, that instead of focusing on the new clause, he should focus on the Minister's reassurances that the £625 million is an accurate figure that will not be exceeded.

Andy Reed: The Opposition have tabled a new clause and it is only right for us to respond. Indeed, I am delighted to do so.
	There are other questions about funding. We know that 50 per cent. of the £1.5 billion from the lottery will come from existing lottery funds, and the other 50 per cent. from the new lottery game. Another £250 million is to come from the London Development Agency. It is bound to be difficult to raise the desired amount. So, if the money is not going to come from the London council tax payer, which other funding body will it come from? It is absolutely necessary that we have that information before we vote on the new clause.

Adam Afriyie: The estimate of the cost of the Olympic games seems to have been made by the Treasury. If the new clause were reworded so that any cost overrun would be spread across the whole nation, or was met in some other way, would the hon. Gentleman be more inclined to support it?

Andy Reed: I would be more inclined to support anything that went a bit further than this proposal, to be honest. As a non-London Member of Parliament, it would be dead easy to stand here and say, "It's great. The London council tax payers will pay", but I recognise that we will all benefit from the London Olympics in some way, particularly those of us in Loughborough.

Pete Wishart: The chances of the London Olympic games coming in on budget are about the same as Scotland's chances of winning the World cup. There will be an overspend, and I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about how it will be met. Will the Minister assure us that it will not come from the lottery? With £1.5 billion coming out of the lottery in the next 10 years, it will have suffered enough.

Andy Reed: Obviously, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I am sure that the Minister is listening. The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many a debate in the lead-up to the successful Olympic bid, and expressed our concerns about the potential impact on grass-roots sport of the Olympics needing new money from the existing lottery funds. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a pessimistic view of Scotland's future, although I am not sure whether he meant the football World cup. I am sure that his constituents will be delighted to hear of his pessimism, however. I hope that Scotland does well in future world cup competitions, whatever the sport, but perhaps it will have a rethink in regard to the participation by the Scottish Football Association, which is denying not only its senior men a place in the 2012 competition, but the other teams that would benefit from joining England and possibly Wales as part of a UK team.
	I had meant to make a very short contribution to ask for further information, but I seem to have attracted a number of interventions. I cannot support the new clause because it makes no mention of where the additional money would come from in the very unlikely event of costs to the lottery bill and the Olympic bill overrunning.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), because he has teased the House with his suggestion that, if someone were to tell him where the overrun money would come from, he could support the new clause. Perhaps I can give him an answer to his question in a second, and if that is satisfactory to him, we shall look forward to seeing him in the Division Lobby shortly.
	I was grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for mentioning the Liberal Democrats' support for the new clause. It should have come as no surprise to him that we would support it, however, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made it clear, back in the run-up to the June 2004 mayoral election—in which he was an extremely good candidate for the Liberal Democrats—that, while the Liberal Democrats would welcome the contribution of the people of London on account of the fact that they would be among the main beneficiaries of the Olympic and Paralympic games, that contribution should be capped so that Londoners knew where they stood.
	The hon. Member for Loughborough shares with me, as the Member for the wonderful city of Bath, the certain knowledge that our constituents will benefit enormously from the games because we—along with Sheffield and other cities—have some of the premier sporting facilities in this country, which will no doubt be used by the visiting and home nation teams in the preparations for the games. That might offer a bit of a clue as to where the contribution might come from, should there be an overrun.
	Before discussing the possibility of such overruns, let me say that I joined the Minister, the Secretary of State, the leader of my party, the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in putting up my hand and saying to the International Olympic Committee that we believed that our bid was backed by an extremely robust financial plan. We made it clear that we were so confident that we had learned the lessons from previous Olympics that we were certain that an overrun—which others described as probable—was not likely to happen. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Loughborough challenges us to say where the money should come from in the event of an overrun. If he wants the answer, he should examine what we told the IOC when we bid for the games in the first instance, because our bid document provides the answer.
	Our full bid statement made it clear that we were committing the United Kingdom Government to be the ultimate guarantor in the event of any shortfall, including any shortfall in the operating budget of the London organising committee for the Olympic games. When the IOC evaluated our submission, it said clearly:
	"The UK Government has guaranteed it would act as the ultimate financial guarantor to cover any shortfall from the Games."
	It went on to say—as I suggested, I am not surprised—that the
	"budget appears to be reasonable and achievable".
	The position is therefore clear. Let me say to the hon. Member for Loughborough that I am confident that there will be no overrun or budget shortfall. Should that eventuality occur, however, it is not right for London council tax payers to pay more than what appears to me to be their fair share.
	I suspect that, in a minute, the Minister will tell us that if we remove the responsibility from London council tax payers, that will lift any pressure on the Greater London authority and the Mayor to bear down on costs. Clearly, that is not the case. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, London has pledge £550 million, with an extra £75 million to call on if needed. Clearly, it is in the interests of the Mayor of London and all GLA members to ensure that even that £75 million is not called on. Within the deal, there is a mechanism to exert downward pressure on costs. It is perhaps also worth reflecting that the Government are not currently making a direct contribution to the Olympics and Paralympics, but are seeking that money from all sorts of other bodies. At the same time, however, the Government will generate significant revenues as a result of the games coming to this country. Later, we will debate one source of revenue—the VAT on the Olympic lottery game.

Susan Kramer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that as Londoners are sharing the risk of overruns, a portion of the revenue gains that eventually come to the Treasury ought to flow back to London to cover Londoners' investment in the games? The Treasury is a winner, but it ought to be willing to share some of that win and cover London's costs, too.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but answering it would be beyond my pay grade. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) might have a few comments to make in respect of that proposal, and I suggest that she take the issue up with him, rather than persuading me to risk his ire by responding.
	One thing is absolutely clear: London council tax payers still have a mechanism to exert that financial pressure and to keep the costs as low as possible. The Government, who are currently not making a contribution, but will gain considerable revenue as a result of the games, also demonstrate that they, too, will exercise pressure to keep the cost down. That is shown by the welcome decision by the Secretary of State, the London organising committee for the Olympic games and others to reject the proposals for the swimming pool complex. Evidence therefore already shows that measures are being taken to keep the price down.
	It would be wrong, however, to put ourselves in a position whereby London council tax payers are left in uncertainty about their financial responsibilities. They are rightly being asked to contribute to the cost of the games because of the significant benefits that London will gain, but it is equally right, as the new clause proposes, to cap the contribution so that London tax payers know what they are paying for and for how long. That should be the end of the matter.

Chris Bryant: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). However, I noted that he referred to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) as an especially fine former mayoral candidate but did not describe the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) in the same terms. I do not know whether there is some split in the Liberal Democrat party or whether the hon. Member for Bath is trying to curry favour with his president.
	As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, the new clause is predicated on the belief that there will a cost overrun. He gave various reasons for that, such as land values and added security, and argued that those factors have not yet been properly costed. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) denounced his nation's sporting prowess in declaring that there would be an overrun.
	If one considers every other country in the world that has held the Olympics, one realises that, when Opposition politicians tried to make political capital by starting to talk about overruns, they made them a political inevitability. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport examined all those countries in detail and found that that was the case. I therefore hope that the debate will not perpetuate the canard that the games must necessarily overrun. The bid model was put together on an extremely robust financial basis and tight analysis was made not only of security and land value issues, and how they might change, but—perhaps most significantly—London Transport's financial needs.
	At one point, inadequate provision had been made to ensure that public transport needs in London would be met, but, following the first IOC visit, when its members commented on that, substantial and sufficient adjustments were made.

Richard Ottaway: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but if there is an overrun, how would he feel if the people of Rhondda were asked to chip in to pay for it?

Chris Bryant: I was about to deal with that point. I suspect that there would not be much support in the country for taking more money out of lottery funds in the case of an overrun, not least because, if we have no decently funded Olympic athletes, there is not much point in holding the Olympics in this country. I hope that Rhys Jones, the grandson of my predecessor but two, Alec Jones, will be an Olympic athlete in the triathlon in the 2012 Olympics. I hope that there will be a proper funding stream for elite athletes, including those in the Rhondda and the rest of Wales, in Scotland and in Bath. That is why I do not support raiding the lottery.
	I do not want a significant extra amount of money to be charged to the taxpayer in the case of an overrun. However, it is wrong to establish a fixed figure as the fair share, which the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, that the London taxpayer should pay as opposed to a share—in other words, a percentage. If there is an overrun, I believe that London taxpayers should pay a fair share of it, rather than a fixed amount, which is proposed in the new clause.
	I say to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that it is, I think, the first time that I have heard an amendment spoken to on the basis that the other place will implement it anyway. That is an undemocratic and rather strange way to proceed with our business. It is an important principle that we have our debates in this place first and resolve them, and then subsequently reflect on what the other place decides to do or not to do. We have heard several times since the general election that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats say that all the previous conventions on how we do business between this place and the other place have been swept aside. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was slightly more sweeping today.

Hugh Robertson: I was simply making the point that if there is not some movement, and bearing in mind that there is cross-party support, there is a danger that their lordships will overturn that which is proposed. Bearing in mind that there has been cross-party support throughout the Bill's passage, I seek to avoid that opportunity.

Chris Bryant: I still think that the hon. Gentleman is coming remarkably close to threatening that whatever happens in this democratically elected Chamber, the Opposition will seek to overturn the will of this Chamber in another place. That is unfortunate. The argument has not been made for the new clause and I hope that it will fall.

Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and agree with what he is trying to achieve through the new clause.
	Many of us who are sports lovers in London have faced the difficulty of the half-hearted and perhaps lukewarm support for the Olympic bid. I was delighted to see the scenes on 6 July, but I have expressed concerns over many years about the costs of the Olympic games. I have always felt that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is likely to issue a blank cheque. I put that proposition to the Secretary of State a year or two ago, and it was pooh-poohed, but I fear that that will be the reality.
	Overall expenditure is supposed to be £2.375 billion. A robust case was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that there will not necessarily be an overrun. He is right to say that we should not start in a negative frame of mind, but experience shows that there have been significant overruns. Clearly, we hope that there will be great commercial gains, which will ensure that quite a lot of money comes into central coffers, but we should recall that Sydney's cost overrun increased almost threefold from £1 billion to £2.8 billion. That must be of great concern to us all—Londoners and everyone else in the United Kingdom—because it is in all our interests not to have an overrun.
	The big issue is that, in essence, London council tax payers will be subject to a massive multiplier effect. The overall costings of £2.375 billion presume £1.5 billion of lottery funding. I entirely understand what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said but I do not necessarily share his reluctance to see the cap lifted.
	At present, it is suggested that £250 million could come from the London Development Agency and £625 million from the London council tax payer. If the overall cost is not £2.375 billion and is, let us say, £3 billion, that will in essence be equivalent to a 100 per cent. multiplier effect on the London council tax payer. That is how the additional £625 million will be raised. It is to be hoped that we will not have a Sydney-type massive cost overrun of perhaps £2 billion, because that additional £2 billion would fall on London council tax payers to pay. That would be entirely unacceptable. London council tax payers would effectively be paying for the blank cheque to which I referred in the House only about 18 months ago.

Richard Ottaway: May I assist my hon. Friend with his figures? The back of a fag packet calculation that I have done is that an overrun of £0.5 billion would add £140 to the bill for every band D household.

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he is not smoking those fags either in this place or anywhere else; perhaps he is still entitled to do so. That is the nub of the problem. In essence, in London, the risk is that we will find ourselves with an enormous burden for many years to come. Already concerns have been expressed by hon. Friends and, I think, Labour Members about the costs that are likely to be imposed upon London taxpayers. As it is the cost is likely to be £20, £30 or £40 a year over 20 years. It could be considerably worse given the multiplier effect to which I have referred.
	I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) is no longer in his place but he rightly referred to the fact that the chairman of the London Development Agency, Mary Reilly, has admitted that the costs of preparing the Olympic site could double from the planned £478 million to £1 billion. If that became a cost overrun, rather than being dealt with by the budgets that have been agreed, that would, once again, penalise council tax payers in London fairly soon. Those are great concerns.
	Anyone who has been to the Lower Lea valley site will have seen that it is greatly contaminated. It is difficult to estimate the likely cost of cleaning that land and ensuring that it is fit for purpose. Inevitably, there is always some optimism in putting forward a strategy and I accept that a robust financial case was made—it was not just a lot of cascading figures—but, very quickly, however robust the financial case, things can go horribly awry. It looks as though the cost of clearing up the site is likely to be significantly more than the £478 million that was mooted at the outset.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make this brief contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has made a sensible suggestion and I hope that the House will seriously consider it. I am particularly glad that it has   cross-party support; the hon. Member for Bath (Mr.   Foster) supports it. It is wrong that London taxpayers should suffer from the potentially ruinous multiplier effect to which I have referred. There may be some merit in the comment of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that the £625 million should not be the cap if there were to be a massive cost overrun. I am sure that London taxpayers would be happy to pay their share, but the reality is that, with a cost overrun, they will pay 100 per cent. of every pound in excess. That would not be the right way forward.

Pete Wishart: Curiously, I find myself joining the Minister in opposing the new clause. I find absurd the suggestion that Londoners and London MPs should simply walk away if all this goes financially pear-shaped, which a number of us anticipate, and leave the rest of us in the United Kingdom to pick up the pieces. London has secured the most extraordinary and fantastic regeneration programme for the east end. It is about to receive the most generous, extravagant input of public money through the lottery to pay for the bulk of the games and for that regeneration. Therefore, London cannot simply walk away when those financial shortcomings come home to roost and expect the rest of the nation to pick up the pieces. That would not be fair, right or proper.

Richard Ottaway: Can the hon. Gentleman remind the House how much the Scottish Parliament cost?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. I will refer to the Scottish Parliament in my speech and give him the full figures for the extraordinary increase in its cost. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will just be patient, I will come to that.
	In this debate, I have heard London Members saying that Londoners will continue to pay for the games through the council tax. Londoners are paying for a sizeable proportion of the London Olympic games and that is right and fair because it is London that stands to gain from all the fantastic regeneration. I suggest that £625 million is a snip to pay for what will be the largest regeneration programme in the next 10 years, anywhere in the world. It is cheap at half the price. I will now answer the question from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). The total cost of the Scottish Parliament was £450 million, so now we have compared costs.
	I could go on about how the Olympics is part of a general package and general process that always seems, inevitably, to secure large infrastructure projects for London. The rest of the UK continues to pay for that. London is the richest, most prosperous part not just of the UK but of the whole of Europe. I shall spare you from any more of that argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that you have heard it being kicked around before during debates in this House; indeed, it has been discussed for the past 10, 20 or 30 years.
	The benefits for London of this regeneration are fantastic. The regeneration of east London alone will create more than 3,000 jobs, and its local economy will benefit by £70 million. It has been concluded that London could make up to £500 million from the tourism legacy—an extraordinary, incredible figure. Given these fantastic legacies, London should be embarrassed at the suggestion that it should walk away from its responsibilities if things go pear-shaped. If things do go wrong, it will not be the fault of the taxpayer or the lottery player; nor will taxpayers elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or lottery players outwith the metropolitan area, share in this legacy. London alone will benefit.

Jo Swinson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that although the Olympic games will obviously benefit London greatly, his constituency, mine and all other Scottish constituencies will also benefit greatly from the sporting opportunities provided for young people? I also hope that the Scottish Executive and Scotland will make the most of the tourism opportunities, and get people to go north of the border once they have been to the London Olympics.

Pete Wishart: Absolutely. There is genuine enthusiasm in Scotland for an Olympic games, and there is massive enthusiasm for a separate Scottish Olympic team—an idea that I hope the hon. Lady supports.

Jo Swinson: indicated dissent.

Pete Wishart: Some 78 per cent. of the Scottish people believe that we should have our own Scottish team in the 2012 Olympics. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in trying to achieve what would be a fantastic addition to the London games. [Interruption.] I am sure that the Minister agrees and that he would love to see a Scotland team competing at the London games.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has already decried his Scottish sporting prowess, so there is no point in his trying to rescue his reputation. Lots of people working on the site of the new Wembley stadium come from south Wales, Yorkshire and other places throughout the country. Surely the important point is that the industry that will build the Olympic site will not be just a London one. The whole community will benefit and if the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he needs to get some better political spectacles. [Interruption.]

Pete Wishart: As the hon. Member for Croydon, South suggests from a sedentary position, Estonia, Lithuania and other parts of eastern Europe will also provide labour for this project; all the best of luck in that regard.
	This new clause is about what will happen if there is overspend, and as sure as night follows day, there will be; it is living in cloud cuckoo land to believe otherwise. As we have heard, the Sydney games overran by twice the projected amount, and the Athens games—the last to be held in Europe—overran by five times the original figure. It is almost too far-fetched to believe that there will be no overspend for the 2012 games.
	We need to look at the UK's record on delivering these large infrastructure projects, and it is utterly appalling. This House decided that the Scottish Parliament should cost £50 million; it came in at 10 times more. The taxpayer is still paying for the absurdity that was the millennium dome, and the Jubilee line extension is another testament to how overspends are becoming a feature of these massive infrastructure projects. I am desperate to find an answer to the question of who should pay for this overspend, should it occur and the new clause and amendment be accepted. Most important, what is the fairest way to finance it, should that prove necessary?
	The Government are committed to financing any overspend, and although the Minister made it clear in Committee that they are in charge on this issue, he was very coy about how such overspend should be met. I should like to hear a little more on that. I again appeal to him: please do not touch the lottery any further. Some £1.5 billion will come from the lottery in the next 10 years, and our grass-root sports, charities and good causes will experience real pain and suffering. Please leave the lottery out of this one. If a shortfall should occur, it would be unsustainable for London to draw any more money from good causes and charities.
	London knew what it was getting into when it bid for these games. It knew of the recent experience of games held in Europe; it knew about the examples of Athens and Sydney; it knew that there had been overspends. It should have read the small print on the tin, saying, "Shares in Olympics can go down, as well as up." All this was overlooked in the general hype and the enthusiasm for bringing the games to London. We all heard about how great the games would be for London and for the rest of the UK. If everything goes well and London benefits from the games, it will be great, but if it all goes pear-shaped, it should not be left to the rest of the United Kingdom to pick up the tab. I oppose the new clause and amendment and I ask all fair-minded hon. Members to do the same.

Simon Hughes: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). I wish to add a couple of points that may persuade many hon. Members, and not only those from London, of the merits of the case. The House may be aware that I am a great enthusiast for the Olympic games. I was really keen that we should make a bid and before the mayoral elections, I made it clear that I supported the Government—as did the Conservative candidate. In case the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has another go at my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) who was my predecessor as candidate—and an excellent candidate she was, too—I should make it clear that she and our party in London also believed that it was right to support the games.
	Concerns were expressed, as might be expected in our capital city, not only in political circles but by ordinary members of the public, that the project might run out of control financially. Therefore, we watched with interest in the last Parliament—before the last mayoral election—as the negotiations went on between the Mayor of London, Ministers and others about the funding package. The negotiations produced a split between a London contribution, a lottery contribution and a London Development Agency contribution. It was also proposed that the games themselves, once everything had been built, would be self-financing.
	I wish to give a couple of reasons for supporting the amendment. First, it is of course the case that people in Loughborough and Bath are further away from the games than people in London, and people in Perth and North Perthshire are further away still. However, people in Hillingdon or Uxbridge, or on the edge of north-west London and in Watford, or on the southern edge of Croydon, which is almost into Surrey, will receive no direct benefit from the regeneration of the east end, any more than people in Loughborough or Wales or Scotland. They may be part of Greater London, but in many ways they consider themselves to live in Surrey, Hertfordshire or Middlesex, so they too want to know that they will not be asked to pay an undue amount. It is different for people who live in Hackney or Tower Hamlets, because they know that they will benefit directly from projects connected with the Olympics, such as the extension of the East London line, the development of the Lea valley and the legacy of housing and sports facilities. That is not the case for people a long way away on the other side of the largest metropolis in Europe.
	Secondly and self-evidently, another of the contributions comes from Londoners—the LDA contribution. The LDA is one of the four children of the Greater London Authority, just like the Metropolitan Police Authority. So although the LDA is regarded as a separate heading in the funding streams, the money will not fall out of a tree and it certainly will not come out of the Mayor's pocket. It will come from Londoners. It gets money from other places, but it is basically a London kitty to which Londoners make a contribution.

Richard Caborn: The budget of the LDA, like any other development agency, comes from the Exchequer.

Simon Hughes: But the reality is that when the Mayor stands for election and determines how much he will charge as a precept across the authority, some of the money that is collected can be spent on the sort of things that are done by the LDA. I accept that some of the LDA's money comes from the Exchequer, but—I stand to be corrected on this point—not all of it comes from the Government. The authority raises some of the money itself; some of it comes from joint schemes with the London boroughs and some of it indirectly from people who visit London. Certainly, businesses and individuals perceive that they contribute to all the budgets for all the spending streams from the Mayor's office, of which the Mayor administers one, and that is where pressure can be applied.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out that the proposal would mean capping the burden on Londoners at the expense of the Scots. That is a dangerous road to take. I do not want to be divisive, but I must put the case on the record: London contributes about 15 per cent. net to the UK economy, which is far more than it receives. Under the Barnett formula, Scotland has done very well, far better per capita than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is part of the constitutional development of the UK. London continues to raise, and spend, money and puts it into the UK kitty. As a capital city, it is happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that we do not constantly make a significant contribution to Scotland.

Pete Wishart: I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman says. However, we have only to consider what happened yesterday, when the Chancellor had to impose a windfall tax on Scotland's North sea oil to pay for all the shortcomings in the economy, to see how much Scotland contributes to the general economy of the UK.

Simon Hughes: I do not say for a second that Scotland does not make a huge contribution to the UK economy, and I know well the history of the debate about the oil around the shores of the UK, including Scotland. Of course we remember yesterday's announcement, but the capital city of the United Kingdom has contributed for as long as the hon. Gentleman and I can remember to the United Kingdom's coffers, and that money has been spent throughout the UK.
	Furthermore, of the 10 most deprived local authorities in the UK, five are in London, including the east end. If we want to ensure that there is fairness, it is wrong and improper to say that London is a great and affluent place that will benefit hugely. Some areas need to benefit as they have been deprived; inner-city areas, especially in capital cities, are often deprived.
	There will be benefits for London and, as people travel in and out of London, those benefits will be shared before, during and after the games with people throughout the UK. I am talking not just about hope, expectation, aspiration, ambition and motivation, but also about opportunities for training and for individuals and teams to visit between 2008 and 2012, and the legacy.
	There will be other, indirect, effects. A local London paper reported recently that, as a result of the Olympics, the costs of housing in London, both rented and purchased, are likely to be considerably higher than in other parts of the country, much more so in the east end. Many costs will be borne and the new clause proposes a cap on the element of the cost that is part of the deal whereby, as part of the formula, every London household puts more into the kitty.

Don Foster: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his understanding of the proposal is the same as mine? We are talking about a cap on the contribution paid by the council tax payers of London, but were there to be an overrun, which we do not believe is likely, it would be funded by all taxpayers throughout the country, including London taxpayers, who, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, make a rather greater contribution in that regard than taxpayers in other parts of the country. We would not be capping the total contribution of Londoners.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Nobody is saying that Londoners would not have to bear their share of the burden if, despite the undertakings and expectations, there was an additional cost. We would pay our fair share like everybody else, but we are already making a specific extra commitment. We know that we have to do that; it could be for 10 or 12 years, which is not insignificant, especially for people on the lowest incomes, so we think that contribution should be capped.
	As you would imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this proposal has been debated across the political parties in London. As the Minister knows, when it went to the London Assembly, 14 members of the Assembly across all parties, including the Minister's, supported it; no one opposed it.

Chris Bryant: Funny, that.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says, "Funny, that". People are elected, as he was elected for the Rhondda, to represent the people in their communities. What I am trying to say is that this issue is not divisive politically; there is a unity of view. Just as there is a broad unity of view in London that we should have the games, that we shall make a great success of the games and that we want the games to do well, there is equally a view that there should be a financial responsibility on all of us—a discipline that limits the amount that we expect Londoners to pay. If that can be agreed, it will be an additional reason why Londoners will support the games and the planning for the games in the years ahead with even greater enthusiasm. I hope that, if the Minister does not accept the proposal today, he will at least accept its merit and agree that it may have to be part of the eventual outcome of the deliberations on the Bill.

Richard Caborn: Before I address the details of the new clause, I want to make a couple of comments about how we approached the decision to bid for the Olympics. We took the decision only after a lot of discussion with cities that had run the Olympics. We asked what they would do differently if they got to run the games again, and many of them told us, "You must make sure that the budgets that are put in place are robust, and will stand examination over time". We therefore adopted that approach, and were commended for it by the evaluation team—the IOC. So we believe that the formula, which I shall outline later—the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Mayor—is the right way to proceed in order to ensure best management practice in running the games, particularly from a financial perspective.
	It would be unfortunate if the House of Lords decided to delay the Bill on the basis of this issue. I say that for the simple reason that we received another crucial message from cities that had hosted the games: that the quicker we set up the company—the ODA—and lay the contracts, the farther we shall be from the end date and the more we shall be in the driving seat and able to control costs. That is why, as I acknowledged earlier, we are grateful for the support that we have had from all political parties and for the way in which the House has dealt with the Bill. We won the games on 6 July and we could well get legislation on the statute book by the early part of next year.
	Terminal 5 has been mentioned as a major construction project—in fact, the major construction project in Europe at this stage. It will cost just under £5 billion, it will come in on time and it may well come in well under budget. We are working closely with the team guiding that project. It should be recognised that more apprentices have been trained at terminal 5 than in the whole of the construction industry put together, so the hon. Member who was quipping from a sedentary position about Romanian, Polish and other labour should re-examine that comment and go and look at terminal 5, which is a credit to the construction industry and to the British Airports Authority. About 8,000 people are working on the terminal, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, tens of thousands of people around the country are part of the supply chain, providing high-quality engineering—a supply chain that is probably the envy of the world. If we apply that type of management to the scheme that we are now embarking upon for the Olympics, I am pretty sure that all that we said we would do in our candidate file is deliverable, so we stand by the statements.
	We have debated proposals of this type before. It would place a cap on the amount of council tax income that might ever be spent on preparing for the games. We cannot agree to such a cap, and I hope that when I have restated the reasons, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	It is true that, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, the Government and the Mayor have agreed that the GLA will make available £550 million towards the public sector funding package, with a further £75 million if required. That is how the hon. Gentleman gets his total of £625 million. The Mayor's contribution will be raised through the GLA precept on council tax, starting in the 2006–07 financial year.
	We have no intention of letting costs run out of control, and the Government and the GLA will make every effort in managing the Olympic project to keep to the original budget. However, if costs exceed the provision allowed for in the public sector funding package, the memorandum of understanding between the Mayor and the Government states that the costs should be met through a
	"sharing arrangement to be agreed as appropriate with the Mayor of London and through seeking National Lottery funding in amounts to be agreed at the time."
	I want to clear up a misunderstanding about land acquisitions by the London Development Agency. Small amounts of money may well have come from elsewhere, but the vast majority of the LDA's work has been directly funded by council tax. The LDA has been responsible for purchasing the land. Indeed, any overrun on price as the cost of land increases will not directly affect the council tax funding.
	Let us consider the assets on the balance sheet post-2012. It is true that the LDA purchased considerable amounts of land well before 6 July and the price started to escalate, but those assets will stay on the LDA's books. I do not know what will happen if there is an overrun on the funding arrangements, but the assets acquired by the LDA—they are London's assets, not central Government's—could well be deployed. So the memorandum of understanding is an agreement that we would share that responsibility, depending on the prevailing conditions at the time.

Mark Field: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can clarify the situation in the interests of all London council tax payers today and in the future. Is he saying that the LDA will be obliged to liquidate some of its assets and therefore release some of the perhaps substantial property gains made to fund any possible overrun?

Richard Caborn: I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that such things will be reviewed at the time. That is why we are not prepared to accept the new clause. It would be wrong at this stage to include that type of cap on the various funding streams. That could be deployed at a later stage.

Simon Hughes: I agree with the Minister when he suggests that, if the land held by the LDA were to increase in value significantly, logically, that increase should be used to reduce the general council tax burden. That is my understanding of one of the reasons why that was put into the original memorandum.

Richard Caborn: Absolutely. That is why we say that all those factors will be taken into account. The memorandum of understanding mentions:
	"amounts to be agreed at the time."
	That is what the MOU is all about, and the way that it has been interpreted by some hon. Members is fundamentally wrong. We believe that this is the right approach. It would not be prudent at this stage to close off any of those funding options to meet a hypothetical future shortfall by capping the amount of council tax that the Mayor may raise. The GLA takes exactly the same view.
	In the event of cost overrun, the Government and the Mayor will need to consider all the options available to them. It is right that council tax will fund some of the games, as they will bring a great many benefits to Londoners—again, that has been explained already this evening—but we have no intention of making a dramatic raid on ordinary council tax payers. If cost overruns were to occur, we would want to balance any possible costs sensitively to avoid imposing punitive costs on individual households. Nevertheless, the Olympic project will be overseen jointly by the Government and the GLA. Under the existing funding and governance arrangements, we have shared interests in running things properly and keeping down costs. That is the right way to do things.
	We must ensure that we retain a shared interest in keeping down costs, but it would be entirely imprudent to cap the liability of one of those parties at this early stage in the process. It is therefore vital that everyone involved should have the maximum incentive to remain hawkish about keeping down the costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already called in the aquatic centre proposals because of the possible cost overrun. I send a very clear message to all those who will be involved in contractual agreements that we will expect them to keep to those costs. That can be done—it can be done by the type of management that we have at terminal 5.
	The Government feel that it would be irresponsible to place a statutory limit on council tax funding at the outset of the Olympic project. I reassure hon. Members again that in the unlikely and unfortunate scenario in which costs run over budget, we would sit down with the Mayor to work out a sensible solution that would not cripple the average household. The Mayor and the GLA are content with that reassurance, so I hope that hon. Members will also accept it and that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent will withdraw the motion.

Hugh Robertson: Time is marching on and we have a great deal more to debate tonight. I am afraid that we have reached a position in which there is a straightforward divide between the Government and the main Opposition parties, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Payments to London Organising Committee in Respect of Olympic Lotteries

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall from time to time pay to the London Organising Committee such sums as are, in his opinion, equivalent to the sums paid into the Consolidated Fund as a result of the operations of any Olympic Lottery.
	(2)   The London Organising Committee shall use any sums paid to it under subsection (1) for the benefit of sport.
	(3)   In this section "Olympic Lottery" means a lottery so designated by virtue of section 21(1) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lotteries Act 2004 (c. 25) (licensing of Olympic Lotteries).'. —[Hugh Robertson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I tabled the new clause with my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) in the light of the omission in yesterday's pre-Budget report of any extra funding for elite athletes who are training for the Olympic games and of increasing concerns among sports outside the Olympic movement about the amount of funding available.
	The parliamentary background to the new clause is well documented. The new Olympic lottery games were established under section 3 of the Horserace, Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004. It provided for four things: a regulator, the National Lottery Commission, to license lottery games; the establishment of a fund to hold the proceeds generated by the new games; the establishment of a body to distribute money held in the fund; and the principle that money held in the fund would be distributed to meet the costs of staging the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.
	As the Bill passed through the House, my party raised two concerns—the start time, which we felt should coincide with the Athens Olympics, and the tax take—so the amendment is nothing new. We know that the Government plan to use £1.5 billion from lottery sources to finance the games—£750 million will come from existing sources and £750 million from the new Olympic lottery games. As money from the new games will be split in the same way as existing lottery proceeds, we know that 50 per cent. will go to the winners, 28 per cent. will go to good causes—in this case, the Olympic games—12 per cent., and this is the crucial figure, will go to the Government in tax, 5 per cent. in commission to retailers, 4.5 per cent. in operating costs and 0.5 per cent. to Camelot.
	It is therefore relatively easy to calculate that if the 28 per cent. earmarked for good causes—in this case, the Olympic games—has to fund the £750 million that the Government are looking for, total lottery sales from the new games must be about £2.68 billion. The Government's tax take—12 per cent.—is £320 million, which is how we arrive at that figure.
	The British Olympic Association has already announced its intention to move Great Britain from 10th to fourth in the medal table. It is a brutal fact of life that the public will judge the success of the 2012 games by the number of medals we win. The BOA has calculated that an extra £25 million is needed each and every year to deliver on that commitment, with an extra £25 million needed for minor sports. The BOA expected that from yesterday's pre-Budget report and was cruelly disappointed.
	Furthermore, sports outside the Olympic movement, and particularly the main mass participation sports of football, cricket, tennis and both codes of rugby, supported the London 2012 bid precisely because of its generic benefit to sport. They should receive enormous credit for this, as it enabled British sport to present an unusually united front to the International Olympic Committee. However, now that the games are secured, they are, quite reasonably, asking what this means for them. They have a number of concerns.
	First, the new Olympic lottery game could lead to a diversion of funds from existing lottery games, meaning less money in the pot for those sports. Secondly, the diversion of a further £750 million from existing lottery sources will obviously mean that less money is available for non-Olympic sports. As a practical example of the effect that this will have, the Rugby Football League told me that it had planned to bid for the 2012 World cup. It now fears that lottery funds will not be available to finance that.
	Thirdly, Government reforms to the lottery, by moving away from the four original pillars—sport, the arts, charities and heritage—mean that there is less money available in the first place. Fourthly, all four of the major sport national governing bodies have told me that they worry that UK Sport is becoming Olympics-dominated in its thinking. That is entirely understandable, but it is vital that we do not lose focus on mass participation sports, which, with the best will in the world, is what the vast majority of people will be playing in the seven years up to 2012 and beyond.
	Fifthly, the sponsorship needed for London 2012 to be a commercial success is, I am told, twice that of the current market value. Although London 2012 will undoubtedly attract new sponsors, it is inevitable that some of sport's existing sponsors will, for obvious reasons, be lured towards the Olympics. As commercial companies do not have unlimited resources, that is bound to impact on the everyday sports. The sponsorship market will fall and that will impact on grass-roots activity.
	Finally, there is the possibility of disruption to the UK's sporting calendar as a result of the IOC's prohibition on major sporting events during the period of the games. I know from my discussions with the Rugby Football League that the super league season, which runs from February to October, faces disruption, as does the Challenge cup final at Wembley on the August bank holiday. The England and Wales Cricket Board made clear its concerns at an all-party cricket group dinner the other week that its ICC future tours programme is already projected until 2013. I know and accept that there is scope for negotiation with the IOC but—this is the important point—many sports outside the Olympic movement have made compromises without, as yet, seeing any return.
	There are two arguments here, one moral and one practical. The moral argument is that given that the Olympics is a one-off, national event, it is utterly iniquitous that the Chancellor should seek to fill his coffers in this fashion. The practical argument is that the concerns of sports inside and outside the Olympic movement could be met by the Government allocating the £320 million that they intend to take in tax from the new Olympic lottery games to the benefit of sport.
	I can do no better than quote directly from the chief executive of the British Olympic Association, who, in the absence from the pre-Budget report yesterday of an increase in Government funding to train our elite athletes, said:
	"This is devastating news for the Olympic Governing Bodies and the aspirations that we all have for delivering successful results at the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games."
	Even UK Sport, the Government's own quango, whose chair is a Government special adviser, said:
	"We're disappointed because we want the best chance of success for our athletes."
	On the other side of the fence, among the mass participation sports, the chief executive of the Football Association said recently:
	"We have some concerns that the Government's concentration of effort and funding on the Games, whilst understandable"—
	it is fair to say that everybody accepts that—
	"may inadvertently lead to a lack of support for the regular grassroots non-Olympic sports that we all know is vital.
	We will be doing all we can to remind all Governments between now and 2012"—
	I was encouraged by that—
	"that, while medals at the Games are important, the country cannot afford to neglect our collective efforts to increase participation levels in our most popular sports."
	I could not agree more on both counts.
	Sport, both Olympic, to fund our elite athletes, and non-Olympic, needs extra funding if the aspirations raised by winning the bid are to become reality. The return of the £320 million in tax taken from the new Olympic lottery games is both morally right and a practical way of starting to deliver for sport. I therefore urge all hon. Members to accept the new clause.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the new clause and about the comments of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). As he knows, I have consistently taken a particular line on the raiding of other parts of the lottery, from the point of view of those of us who are interested in grass-roots sport, especially the ones that are not part of the Olympic games. There are many mass participation sports that are outside the Olympics, such as my own game, rugby union, and rugby league, as the hon. Gentleman noted. It is a great shame that the IOC has not taken the lead and included rugby sevens, which is included in the Commonwealth games. It would have been a fantastic opportunity for that to be part of the 2012 Olympic games.
	I have been quite closely involved in trying to assess what is required, particularly as regards the UK Sport bid for additional funding. Those of us who know the threesome—Bath, Sheffield and Loughborough—know what it will take to get an Olympic gold medallist in 2012. We know that the average age of a gold medallist in 2012 will be 26.2 years. That means that such a person will probably already be in a development squad at one of our leading centres, the English Institute of Sport, and we know from UK Sport's work the attrition rate—the number of people who will drop out of those training programmes—and the size of the training programme that we need across the Olympic sports.
	I play quite a bit of volleyball, which will be an Olympic sport in 2012 because we are the host nation. We will be looking for a creditable performance, but even with all the lottery funding that we can muster, it is unrealistic to expect the UK team to pick up the gold medal—I sound like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who has downgraded his aspirations for Scottish World cup wins. I do not want to be down on our fantastic volleyball players, who are based in my constituency, but they, too, are realistic about their chances of winning.
	It is too easy to sit on the Opposition Benches and say, "We would like to spend an extra £300 million, and we have got a rough idea where it will come from." Only yesterday, Opposition Members criticised the so-called difficulties with the Budget, so it is strange that the Opposition parties are introducing a proposal to take another £300 million out of the figures in the pre-Budget report. I can see the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) distancing himself from the official Opposition on that particular matter.

Don Foster: indicated assent.

Andy Reed: At Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister usually takes the opportunity to run through the Liberals' spending plans.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the new clause.

Andy Reed: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 2 refers to how the £320 million will be used. I would like the Chancellor to write a cheque for that sum tomorrow, but I recognise that it is not that easy because the Government face tough choices. I am delighted that the Liberals have, for once, taken the hair-shirt approach and wish only that more hon. Members were present to witness it.
	A great deal more work needs to be done on how the bid is submitted to the Government. The BOA needs to do more work on securing additional funding in partnership with others for each year until 2012, so it can reach £40 million to £50 million extra a year for the 28 sports. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has indicated, however, the funding needs to cover many other sports.
	We are discussing a great deal of investment to get people on to the podium, and a great deal of work needs to be done. We must work with the Treasury to make sure that we secure the required level of funding. We should be much more imaginative and, rather than taking a begging bowl directly to the Treasury, we should find other ways to fund the elite performance to which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has referred. I cannot support new clause 2, but in general I would like to see a great deal more work being done to ensure that we secure the necessary level of funding for the governing bodies that will participate in 2012.

Kate Hoey: I share my hon. Friend's logic. Does he agree that the fundamental principle behind our having the Olympic games in London in 2012 involves grass-roots sport? It is not good enough to say that the Olympics will automatically help grass-roots sport—it will not happen unless a decision is taken to make it happen.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I am particularly concerned about that danger. It would be great if we were to find an additional £50 million a year for elite sport in this country and were to finish fourth in the medal table, but what would be the legacy for our sporting future?
	A great deal has been done—for example, we have largely achieved our objectives on school sport. On elite sport, those of us who know what is happening in the English Institute of Sport, which will form part of UK Sport, feel that we can deliver a great deal with additional funding. On grass-roots sport, although some good work is going on and a lot of additional funding is coming in, it will take a great deal more work to reach our objectives, and we are not quite there yet. My worry is that taking £750 million away from existing lottery causes would make that job even harder, and we must think more about the money that is currently available.
	As hon. Members know, I chair the national strategic partnership for volunteering in sport. The problem is that we are making the situation harder and harder for volunteers, which makes it harder and harder for people to participate at a grass-roots level. That is not necessarily the Government's fault, because a number of agencies are involved. I hope that the lasting legacy of 2012 is not the grand stadiums, which will nevertheless be fantastic, but a genuine passion for sport and the money to deliver it.

Don Foster: As ever, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). On this occasion, I agree with almost everything that he has said and was not offended when he described me as hair-shirted. I also agree with him about the addition of rugby sevens to the list of sports, although I say that slightly diffidently knowing that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will no doubt read my remarks and wonder why darts has not been included on the wish list for additional Olympic sports.
	As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has said, the Chancellor's statement caused considerable disappointment given what he did not say about funding for sporting endeavour, and particularly sporting endeavour that helps us to achieve an increased medal haul. He was right to say that those of us who share that concern need to get together with the representative bodies to find arguments to put pressure on the Chancellor and to come up with other forms of funding. As the hon. Member for Loughborough has said, a lot is being done, and I praise the Minister and the Government for their work. I also hope that we go on to develop links between community sports clubs and our schools.
	My party simply cannot support the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, because we have some difficulty with the Conservative party's mixed messages about the lottery. Conservative Members tell us that it is wrong for the Government to put their sticky little mitts in lottery funding, but the Conservative party manifesto contains a proposal to raise £250 million a year from the lottery for its club-to-school scheme. The Conservative party is proposing a form of hypothecated tax, which Conservative Members always say is complete anathema to them whenever we make such a proposal—the Conservative proposal is schizophrenic.
	Many hon. Members had grave qualms about using the lottery to make a major contribution towards the cost of running the Olympics. However, Liberal Democrats recognised that the Olympics are so important to the nation, to sport and in many other ways—for example, culturally—that we were prepared to make an exception. That is why we supported the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004, and I believe that we were right to do so. During the passage of the 2004 Act, we were disappointed when we were told that the £410 million from other distributors would only be available if it were needed, although it was not long after the 2004 Act received Royal Assent that the Government said that that sum would be needed. However, we lived with that situation, because we had made a commitment.
	Even were I prepared to support the notion of taking VAT in respect of just one part of the lottery and using it in the broad way that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent suggests, I am not convinced that the mechanism would work. How would LOCOG, which has very specific responsibilities in respect of the running of the Olympic games, ensure that all aspects of sport receive some of the money? Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what would happen were LOCOG to receive that additional, very significant sum of money. As the games should operate successfully within budget as it is, an extra £320 million could lead to a surplus. He will remember that as part of the deal, 20 per cent. of any such surplus will go to the IOC, 20 per cent. to the BOA and 60 per cent. to grass-roots sport. He is suggesting, in effect, that we take money away from the lottery and give it to the IOC. Some of the money would not even end up in sport in this country. I find that aspect of the proposal difficult.
	The new clause is somewhat schizophrenic about the lottery and about the approach to VAT receipts and the Chancellor's responsibility for using them. For those and many other reasons with which I do not wish to detain the House, we will not support the hon. Gentleman, who in many other respects has done a fantastic job.

Richard Caborn: I echo some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I agree that the approach taken in new clause 2 is schizophrenic. People who criticised the Chancellor for not supporting the move from 10th to fourth position in the medals table in yesterday's pre-Budget report then argue about investment into grass-roots sport as well. The whole Olympic bid process has been one of properly evaluating the risks and costs so that we can learn lessons from previous mistakes. Simply plucking out of the air the idea that we are going to move from 10th to fourth, and then saying, "Please fund it, Chancellor", is not the best way of trying to persuade people that we are serious. UK Sport, under the very good leadership of Sue Campbell, together with Peter Keene, who is probably one of the best respected people in sport, and Liz Nicholl, is systematically working through what it will take to move us progressively up the medals table.
	I entirely accept that one of the great successes of 2012 will be our young people picking up those medals on the podiums. However, we have to balance the investment in 26 sports against the 130 sports for which I have ministerial responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) mentioned the balance between grass-roots and elite sport. We will get that balance right. There is more investment going into sport than there has been for very many years. The investment that is being made in sporting and physical activity through "Building Schools for the Future" clearly shows that we take it very seriously, from the grass roots to the podium.

Andy Reed: The case that has been put forward by UK Sport is fairly robust and well argued, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the support that he gets from the House this evening reaches the Treasury. Does he agree that grandstanding and attacking the Government is not the best way of negotiating the question of funding and is unhelpful to sport in general? Perhaps the chair of the BOA will learn that working in partnership with people is a much better way forward.

Richard Caborn: There has not been a Chancellor in the recent past who has been more supportive of sport. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been asking for mandatory rate relief for clubs for 30 years—now we have got it. The talented athlete scholarship scheme, which is investing in grass-roots sport, came from the Chancellor. This Government's investment in sport—through the Chancellor, with support from the Prime Minister—has been second to none. UK Sport is putting a case together, and if it is well argued I believe that there could be a positive response. Trying to bounce the Treasury is not the best way forward.
	Opposition Members have presented the proposal in the new clause to us before in various forms. It would make a special case for the Olympic lottery by providing for a form of tax rebate. There are two reasons why that cannot happen. First, as with all taxes, the Chancellor keeps lottery duty under review and gives due consideration to Budget representations made in the course of the Finance Bill process. As such, any changes in lottery duty should be considered in the context of a future Finance Bill, not this Bill.
	Secondly, the Government intend that the same principles that apply to the existing national lottery should apply to any Olympics-themed games. Camelot says that the lottery game has been hugely successful. I put on the record my thanks to all the people who are buying Olympics lottery tickets. That clearly demonstrates the support behind the Olympic bid. People have put their money where their mouths were, and the first £4 million has already been made.
	The principle of taxation in the national lottery was accepted by Parliament when the lottery was introduced—[Interruption.] I know that it was introduced by the Opposition. I do not intend to make political points about that because the lottery is one of our national institutions and it has all-party support. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that it will be taxed in the normal way. The £500 million that is collected by the Exchequer goes towards essential services such as schools, hospitals and the like, and it would be wrong to remove it.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will reflect on the funding of elite as against grass-roots sport. I hope that he accepts that the right way to approach the Treasury is the way in which UK Sport is doing it, with a systematic analysis of what needs to be done in investing in elite sport to ensure that we move up the medals table. It is a little naive to say at this early stage that we will move from 10th to fourth without putting the funding mechanism in place. That is not the right way to go about it. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Hugh Robertson: I listened with interest to what the Minister said. The good news is that Members on both sides of the House agree on the importance of both securing the necessary funding for our elite athletes and increasing grass-roots participation. Where we differ is on the method of achieving that.
	I entirely accept that the mechanism that we propose is a blunt tool. What should be set against that is that we all make our contribution to lobbying of the Treasury in our own ways. In view of that, and not least because I want the point to be raised, I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4
	 — 
	      General Functions

Richard Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
	'(   )   pay compensation to any owner of a business whose interests are injuriously affected by the development of land, premises or facilities in connection with the London Olympics;'.
	This is the fourth time that I have raised the issue of compensation for businesses that will have to be relocated from the Olympic site. It is a matter of some sadness that I have had to raise it four times, but I am afraid that I have still not received the answers that I am seeking.
	No two businesses on the Olympic site are the same. Some are freehold, some are leasehold; some are owned by sole proprietors, and some by publicly quoted companies. I suspect that the vast majority are leasehold, and it would be very easy for their leases to be terminated and for the companies to be relocated. Many of them are in storage, and it would simply be a question of moving the contents of the business from one site to another.
	The Minister is well aware of the constituency case that I have raised, so I shall not dwell on it, other than to say that it concerns a proprietor-owned freeholder who is experiencing severe difficulties in relocating. The Minister, to his credit, has said that he takes a keen personal interest in these matters, and has made all the right noises. Both he and the Mayor have said that no business will be disadvantaged. There is a lack of clarity, however, in exactly what is meant by that.
	The briefing that we received from the London Development Agency for the debate in Westminster Hall last week set out exactly what the agency's statutory responsibilities were in this regard. They include,
	"funding for legal and surveying costs, offers of LDA-owned sites for relocation, and development of tailored support packages".
	In a separate briefing, the LDA states that it has
	"given a firm assurance that no business will be financially disadvantaged as a result of the compulsory purchase order process."
	However, that still does not deal with the non-CPO aspects of this issue. The briefing continues:
	"Businesses will be compensated and supported as generously as possible, within the legal framework in which the LDA operates."
	Again, the LDA framework is general in its outlook without being specific as to exactly what kind of compensation might be available. A briefing helpfully provided by the Greater London Authority for today's debate states:
	"The Mayor and LDA remain firmly committed to ensuring that the process of land acquisition for the Olympic Park development does not disproportionately disadvantage those with current interests in the land."
	What on earth does that mean?
	Let us take the example of a business that has to be relocated. It would have to remarket itself, relaunch itself and retrain staff. It would inevitably suffer losses. I have one simple question for the Minister, if I can get his attention. Will the items that I have just set out—he might have missed them, but I am sure he has heard all this before—be covered? In an earlier intervention, he said that the LDA was Exchequer-funded, and that is quite right. So the power flows from the Government to the LDA to the dispossessed business. Does the Minister believe that the LDA has the power and the funds to provide complete compensation to a business in the situation that I have just described? In other words, would it cover the costs not only of relocation but of relaunching and the inevitable loss of profit? These are simple questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give me clear yes or no answers.

Jo Swinson: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In the Westminster Hall debate on this issue last week, he set out very eloquently the concerns of his constituent and the business that he runs. There has been a huge amount of support for the games from the business community and from individuals in London and the rest of the UK, but we need to ensure that the business community will be compensated appropriately.
	The amendment raises certain questions. How is the compensation to be applied? What levels will be set? Where is the money to come from? Ultimately, who is to be the judge? Businesses have set forth their case for being injured by the games and suggested the amount of compensation that they believe to be appropriate. The Sunday Express on 27 November carried the example of a concrete-crushing business that had claimed that it needed £20 million of compensation. It had been offered £1.5 million, so there was obviously a difference of opinion as to what the business should be entitled to.
	Certain unscrupulous companies or individuals might seek to benefit unduly from the games by submitting cases that do not have sufficient merit, and we need to find a way of arbitrating all the cases. One sensible suggestion is that we should appoint an independent arbitrator who could address the problem. They would evaluate the loss to the business and examine the case that had been presented. Each business will probably have a unique case. The arbitrator's judgment could then be presented to the Department or agency that would be required to pay the compensation. That would present an accurate and fair fee for transferring land to the games, and a process in which all those involved could have faith. About 300 businesses might be affected, and such a process could instil faith in them that they would receive the compensation that they were due.
	We spoke earlier about the sound financial management required to ensure that the games come in on budget. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we must ensure that those businesses that will genuinely be affected can get the support that they need. At the same time, however, we must ensure that the LDA is not held hostage and that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable to ever-escalating costs. I suggest that an independent arbitrator would provide a good answer to this problem.

Hugh Robertson: For reasons that I entirely understand, the Minister missed the Westminster Hall debate last week, in which we touched on a number of these issues.
	I went to visit some of the businesses involved on 17 November. I tried to approach the meeting with an entirely open mind, but I came away feeling considerable sympathy for much of what they said. I shall try to encapsulate for the Minister what appeared to be the three problems involved. First, I do not want to party political, but there were issues surrounding the conduct of the LDA. I suspect that the LDA did not expect us to win the bid in Singapore, and thus might not have done all the necessary work—for reasons that we can all understand—to identify and secure alternative sites. There were countless stories of unreturned phone calls, unanswered letters and messages left hanging in thin air, which clearly did not help one iota.
	Secondly, some surveying firms were acting both as compulsory purchase valuers and as agents for prospective new sites, which is a serious issue. The Minister will know perfectly well that that is a straightforward conflict of interest and should never happen. Finally, the very fact that the Olympic site is such a large industrial site has, for obvious reasons, made replacement properties difficult to identify. Furthermore, post the bid, the supply of similar land is considerably scarcer, thus pushing up values. Any settlement must therefore be based on post-bid land values, not on the values existing prior to the Singapore decision.
	It was clear from my meeting that a realistic settlement could be reached on the basis of the cost of the replacement site, plus the necessary construction cost, plus an element of dislocation. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote tonight, but the Minister should be in no doubt about the scale of the problem. The suggestion of an independent arbitrator is helpful, and some such initiative would prevent positions becoming entrenched. If they do become entrenched, without Government intervention, I fear that a solution will be hard to find.

Richard Caborn: Clause 4(5) ensures that everyone whose land is injuriously affected by Olympic construction works will be entitled to a fair amount of compensation. That provision will apply to businesses in the same way as it applies to home owners. Compensation will be calculated on the basis of depreciation in the market value of the land affected. In the event of dispute, there will be a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. That puts the Olympic project on exactly the same footing as other major construction projects undertaken by public bodies. The Olympic delivery authority will pay compensation, rather than the London Development Agency, as it will be directing the works on the LDA's land. The responsibility will go to the ODA when this Bill, I hope, becomes an Act. Under an earlier amendment, all the work and contracts operated by the LDA will go to the ODA—I hope in an efficient and effective way.
	In adopting that approach, the Bill is entirely consistent with the precedent set in other contexts, including the channel tunnel rail link project. I understand where the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) is coming from. He is concerned to make sure that businesses get a fair deal, and I support that aim. We also want to ensure that people are fairly compensated. We do not want to make the Olympics a special case, however, compared with other large-scale public construction projects.
	The amendment would create a special case by widening the class of people entitled to compensation to cover all those whose interests are affected, however indirectly and regardless of whether they are land owners or tenants in the land affected. That is too broad an approach. Its effects are uncertain, but it is likely to result in a multiplicity of claims and to prove very expensive. It is much better to rely on several decades of case law in this area to provide what is acknowledged to be a fair and reasonable compensation scheme for those who deserve compensation. We have provided the necessary hook in the Bill to ensure that that is the case.

Richard Ottaway: I apologise if I am pre-empting the Minister, but does the case law provide compensation for loss of profits in this situation?

Richard Caborn: Each case is considered on its own merits, but relocation costs, new stock and loss of profits can be included. All that will be determined by the Lands Tribunal—this is where the independent tribunal comes in—under the Land Compensation Act 1961. There is independent arbitration and the facility to take into account losses beyond just the land price. If that is operated correctly, the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman should be answered.
	In relation to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), all agents have guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest, and all such procedures are fully regulated by the appropriate professional body. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has its code of conduct, and members of the RICS who are in breach of that could face expulsion. In the light of the Adjournment debate that took place in Westminster Hall, I am writing to the LDA to draw its attention to that position. If there has been any such occurrence, I do not believe that it has been intentional. I reiterate that the Lands Tribunal is the mechanism for the type of arbitration to which the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was referring.
	I genuinely hope that I have been able to answer the questions put on the record. Overall, the LDA has done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances. It had to respond post-6 July, and it has done that very well. We have put tremendous pressure on it, and I think that its approach to underground cabling and other issues will pay immense dividends in the medium to long term. While, on the one hand, it might not have answered a few telephone calls—I understand the frustration arising from that—on the other, I hope that when we get this Bill on to the statute book and the ODA takes over we can start working in a slightly more effective and efficient manner than has probably been the case previously.

Richard Ottaway: I am obliged to the Minister. There has been frustration, although I am the first to acknowledge that things have improved, particularly in the past few weeks. I am grateful for his interest in the matter and the way that he has approached it. In the light of the welcome clarification that he has given today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Advertising Regulations

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 18, page 12, line 41, after 'Committee,', insert—
	'(ba)   shall have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs,'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 19
	Amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 21, after 'Contract,', insert—
	'(aa)   in no case shall the regulations apply before 13th July 2012,'.
	Amendment No. 5, in clause 19, page 14, line 12, at end insert—
	'(ca)   shall provide for exceptions for newspapers, magazines, television, radio, mobile telephony and other electronic media in respect of section 18(5),'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—
	'(aa)   shall consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons within the advertising business,'.
	Government amendment No. 20
	Amendment No. 7, in schedule 3, page 44, line 28, at end insert—
	'(aa)   may be made only after consultation with persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons within the advertising business and those who have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry,'.

Hugh Robertson: I want to speak in support of the amendments in my name and that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
	It is well documented that ambush marketing has been an issue at previous Olympic games. At the 1992 Barcelona games, Reebok paid $700 million only to find Nike sponsoring the winning basketball team's press conference and one of the competitors covering up his Reebok logo. At the 1996 Atlanta games, however, the issue really threatened to overwhelm the Olympics. As a result, subsequent summer and winter games have included provisions to prevent ambush marketing and to protect the rights of official sponsors. That is important as LOCOG, the event manager, needs to raise approximately £1.5 billion, which will come from three main funding streams. Funding of £550 million will come from the IOC, £310 million will come from ticket sales, an extra £100 million will come from other sources, and £510 million will come from sponsorship raised by LOCOG—hence the need for these regulations. Given that, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, any revenue surplus is reinvested, with 60 per cent. invested for the general benefit of sport in the UK and 20 per cent. going to the British Olympic Association, we wholeheartedly support that approach.
	I am therefore happy with the concept of anti-ambush marketing provisions and the protection of the London Olympics association. Across many sports, inside and outside the Olympic movement, that is the modern way—notably at recent cricket world cups, which have seen similar provisions. Set against that, however, all Members of the House will want voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs to benefit from hosting the 2012 Olympics. The key is to achieve that without compromising the protection put in place to safeguard the official sponsors. Amendment No. 2 seeks to achieve that.
	Voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs have several concerns. The London organising committee for the Olympic games, which already has the power to make blanket exemptions for specific groups, has said that it will not do that in the instance that we are considering and I thank the Minister for writing to confirm that after the Committee stage. There is a concern that the sponsorship of teams or individuals could be affected.
	It is also down to the accused to prove their innocence, which is difficult in some cases given the limited resources at their disposal. Fundraising on behalf of individual athletes may be compromised and voluntary or community groups that want to have an Olympics theme day could fall foul of the regulations. For example, I was contacted by Soul in the City, a religious group that engages young people in voluntary work to the benefit of local communities. It is a fantastic organisation that everybody here would support. It wants to hold an Olympics theme day but is worried that doing so will contravene the regulations. That fear of contravening the regulations will deter smaller organisations from making use of the many opportunities that the games will bring.
	The commercial marketing elements of the Bill are undoubtedly necessary to prevent ambush marketing and exploitation. Previous Olympics, prior to the introduction of similar measures, have suffered. We also need to maximise the advertising revenue so that, after 2012, the maximum amount of money can be returned to sport.
	However, the 2012 Olympics have been marketed as an event that will benefit the whole of the UK. Thanks to the hype that surrounds the games, anticipation is understandably high. Every hon. Member will want schools, sports clubs, community groups and voluntary organisations to derive the maximum benefit from hosting the games. All those organisations will want to use the Olympics to bolster fundraising, raise awareness and get more people involved. There is no prospect of those groups making personal gains. I urge the Minister to go into some detail in his response to explain the exact processes and safeguards that will protect those groups. There cannot be a single hon. Member who does not want that to be achieved.
	In speaking about amendment No. 5, I should like to take over where my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) left off in Committee. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bath tabled an amendment to clause 18(5)—clause 17(5) as it was then. Conservative Members supported it in debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke elicited from the Minister the welcome confirmation that there was no intention to apply the regulations to television.
	The hon. Member for Bath had similar success in establishing from the Minister that newspapers and, indeed, the stands from which vendors operate, would also enjoy an exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18. We are grateful for the clarification on that. However, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke to elicit similar assurances about magazines and radio, they were not forthcoming. Given that they are directly comparable to newspapers and television, surely it is right that the exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18 extends to them.
	I understand that those issues were subsequently raised at the meeting between representatives of the advertising industry and Department officials on 10 November. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. At that meeting, officials also undertook to consider the case for extending the exemption from clause 18 regulations to mobile telephones and other forms of electronic media that might deliver advertisements.
	The amendment's object is therefore threefold. First, it would reflect in statute the commitments that the Minister made about newspapers and television in Committee. Secondly, it would extend those commitments to the comparable media of magazines and radio. Thirdly, its purpose is to tease out from the Minister the view at which the Government have arrived on mobile telephones and other electronic media, which should also be exempted from the regulations issued under clause 18.
	I know that the Minister is aware of many of those concerns and I thank him publicly for his assistance thus far. We discussed the issues at the helpful meeting at the Department on 21 November. I hope that, as a result of the amendments, he will welcome the opportunity to put the necessary reassurances on the record.

Don Foster: The group under consideration comprises a string of different amendments and I am the only hon. Member whose name is appended to each. The Minister and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) can therefore rest assured that I support the amendments that they tabled.
	Amendment No. 2 is crucial because it was made clear at the outset that one of the central goals that we wanted to achieve in the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics was
	"a lasting legacy for future generations in health, homes and jobs and, of course, sport sustainable legacy".
	That is a quote from the candidate file. An important factor will be the ability of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs to capitalise on the games. We know of many examples of organisations that will use the Olympics as a vehicle for promoting voluntary action. They include the Waltham Forest volunteer centre, which plans to use the Olympics as a catalyst for expansion. Many organisations, such as the Stratford athletics and cycling club, will use them for increasing participation in sport. It is therefore crucial to ensure that we have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs.
	The Minister will not be surprised that I support Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 because they are the same as those that I tabled in Committee. By withdrawing them, I gave the Minister the opportunity to bring them back and claim the credit. I welcome the fact that he has stuck to his commitment. They may not appear especially important since they simply change the word "may" to "shall", but they are none the less significant because it is clear that, for example, in advertising A-frames, it is important to have regard to amenity and public safety. As I pointed out in Committee, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is especially hot on those matters and insists that amenity and public safety are taken into account when local authorities and others decide whether to accept outdoor advertising and signs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has produced a guidance note on that, so I was anxious to follow that Department's instructions in the case of the Olympics. The Minister assured us that he would consider that. He has done so and I am delighted that he has agreed that the matter is crucial.
	Amendment No. 4 is equally critical. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent pointed out, clause 18 describes the regulations that govern advertising in the vicinity of the London Olympic events. It gives the Secretary of State power to place restrictions on the physical locations of advertising about the games. However, in its current form, the measure does not provide a definitive start date by which the regulations come into effect. Many people therefore believed that it was important to include a clear date.
	We all accepted the need both to include regulations because that was part of the host city contract and to agree on when they would begin. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent did not point out that, when we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister told us on 18 October that any regulations under clause 18 would not apply for longer than the Olympics period. That is from four weeks before the Olympic games to five days after the end of the Paralympic games. We were then told, interestingly;
	"If one reflects on what the IOC says, we are definitely not putting gold-plating into the Bill—if anything we are tending marginally towards the other side."
	The Minister added
	"we have gone no further than what the IOC asked us to do in terms of its technical manuals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October, 2005, c.78–84.]
	For some of us, it is rather difficult to check whether what the Minister said was entirely accurate. The technical manuals are somewhat different to get hold of. They seem to be locked away in safes to which only very few people have access. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that we must trust him and that he got that right. When I wrote to the Minister, along with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I pointed out that we had managed to get hold of the code to the safe and that we had examined what the manuals said. The manuals say that the IOC requires host countries to apply restrictions on the physical location of advertising only for a maximum of two weeks before the Olympic games, not four.
	I was grateful that having written to the Minister, he graciously acceded to the slight error that he had made. In the letter that we received of 30 November, he said:
	"We accept that advertising regulations should not begin more than two weeks before the Olympic Games begin, as per IOC requirements".
	He repeated the phrase:
	"We want to be clear that we are not gold-plating this legislation."
	That was the position earlier, but if it is to be two weeks that will not be gold-plating.
	Given that the Minister has written in a letter precisely what he intends to do, it seems not unreasonable on this occasion for him to accept the amendments. They would simply put into the Bill what the Minister, somewhat belatedly, has accepted would be the right way forward. I look forward to the Minister's positive response to the amendments. I note that he points to his brief, which seems to indicate that we might be in for some success.
	I hope that we shall also have some success with the other amendments. Amendment No. 5 represents an attempt to ensure that a range of media should receive appropriate exemption from legislation regarding advertising in the vicinity of the games. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has made exactly the right point—there have been one or two exemptions but the scope should be widened. What would it be like for a member of the public to be reading a newspaper while standing in the vicinity of an Olympic event? Someone could be looking over that person's shoulder or, even worse, given that television cameras would be able to view it, someone could look through a television camera and see an advertisement in that newspaper. We are deeply concerned about this, and the scope of the exemptions needs to be extended to include newspapers.
	What about someone who is holding out his mobile phone and on it, as is sadly the case these days, there are advertising images? That could be in contravention of advertising rules. What about someone who is listening to their portable radio? Let us say that it is on a commercial channel and an advertisement appears on it? Clearly, that could be a breach of the rules unless we have the right exemptions in respect of advertising within the vicinity of an Olympic event. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to similar issues but focus on the consultation that will take place. It is surely right and proper that we have guarantees set out in the Bill about who will be consulted about the regulations, because a number of bodies must be consulted. A list appears in the Bill, but, sadly, all the people whom we think should appear are not included.. The Minister thought that we were on to quite a jolly good idea. In Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry that you were not able to join us in these exciting events—the Minister said:
	"The hon. Member for Bath made a point about consulting the advertising industry. He rightly pointed out that there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to do that, but I can give a commitment now from the Front Bench that we will do so. It would be foolish not to consult the industry."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005, c. 79.]
	We already have a list of bodies that are to be consulted, but the advertising industry is not on that list. The Minister has said that it would be foolish not to include it in the list of consultees, so it would be extremely strange if the Minister did not accept a modest amendment to include that industry in the list in the Bill. That is equally true of those people who have to vet advertisements. In particular, television advertisements must be prepared a long time in advance, so we need to be sure that those who are responsible for vetting such advertisements will be consulted. That is why amendment No. 7 refers to those who have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.
	I hope also that the amendment will provide the Minister with an opportunity to say a little more to those who are responsible for preparing advertising and for clearing advertising about what he has in mind with time scales. The Minister has had detailed consultations with representatives of the industry, which I know they have welcomed. They have reminded him repeatedly of the long time scale that is needed, very often, to prepare advertisements. Some advertisements that the industry might be using in 18 months' time will already be in preparation. The industry needs to know when those advertisements might fall foul of the regulations once they come into force. It is crucial that those concerned are consulted. It is crucial also that they be given an assurance that the regulations will not come into effect in the immediate future. Every one of the amendments in this group is worthy of support by the Minister and by the House, and I hope that they will be given that support.

Andy Reed: I wish briefly to speak in support of amendment No. 2. Whether it is carried is a different matter, but I hope that it is recognised that for all of us who are interested in community sports and how the Olympics can be used—not by commercial organisations; I fully understand the requirement to prevent ambush marketing—there are some fine lines between what is acceptable and what is not, and what can be regarded as community services. Having met some of those involved in brand protection, I fully understand just what needs to be done and the dangers involved. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the comments that have been made in the House.
	Some Members have suggested that our sports colleges be renamed Olympics sports colleges for 2012. Each of us has individuals in our constituencies who are interested in promoting sports development by using the 2012 brand. I recognise that it is important that that brand is protected, but there must be some way in which many voluntary organisations and sporting organisations, including small clubs and individuals who come together to promote the Olympics and the build-up of sport development, are at least allowed to take that forward.
	I hope that in his discussions, particularly with the organising committee, the Minister will find a way of ensuring that there is some flexibility so that people are not put off at this early stage. As chair of the county sports partnership in Leicestershire, I have experience of many individuals coming forward with great ideas to brand themselves—for example, a half marathon that is built on 2012 branding, leading up to the Olympics. There are children and teenagers who would love to have been Olympians but, like me, recognise that they stand no chance of achieving that. At the same time, they wish to play some part in the Olympics.
	I have an interest in developing volunteers. For many people, the concept of the Olympics will be what they can contribute to the event, not what they can get out of it. Many people are asking, "What will my town or my constituency get out of the Olympics?" One of the great things about volunteering is that people will be able to put something in and thereby get something out of the event. At the same time, they will be making a major contribution.
	As for volunteering, most people do not have access to all the information about regulations. They just know that they have a good idea which they would like to see through. I hope that they do not become fearful of even suggesting using the branding for 2012 because of possible difficulties. I have been told about examples of events that are highly dubious—I heard yesterday of a wet T-shirt competition that used the five rings. I shall not go into detail about how they were used, but that is the sort of thing that London 2012 is dealing with regularly. It stretches the definition of "voluntary" and "community". I do not want such events to be encouraged because there are clearly commercial elements to some of them, but I hope that the Minister and others are cognisant of the difficulties facing genuine sports and voluntary groups that want to make major use of the 2012 Olympics to develop sport. We must ensure that they will not be put off. We may go too far if we do not take on board some of the points that are made in the amendments.

Maria Miller: I would like briefly to speak in support of amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 7. The Olympics is a unique opportunity in the history of our country to build not only sporting participation at grass-roots level and sporting excellence, but pride in our people, our country, our achievements and indeed our communities. We should all do a lot more of that.
	In Committee, the Minister stated strongly that he felt that the Bill as drafted would not deter communities, sports clubs and voluntary organisations from becoming fully involved in the Olympics in whatever way was felt fit and that the correct balance would be struck. While I of course take him at his word, the Bill does little to back that up and, with the greatest respect to him, it is highly unlikely that he will be in place throughout the life of the Bill. Therefore, I support the amendment to ensure that what is currently, according to the Minister, implicit in the Bill becomes a little more explicit and that LOCOG is required to have regard to the involvement of sports clubs and interest groups in what will be, I am sure, a historic event for our country.
	This is one of the most prestigious sporting events in the world and its value is widely appreciated among those who may be approached to be sponsors. Many worldwide sponsors, including Visa, which is a major employer in my constituency, have been sponsors since 1986, showing that we have quite a lot of repeat purchase in the market. The Government need to ensure that they maximise the benefits for the country in the broadest way, as well as protecting the interests of those sponsors. It is a two-way street. As the Minister agreed in Committee, it is a question of balance. There is an important balance to be struck. That has been reiterated by other third parties, including Arup in the report that it was commissioned to undertake in May 2002.
	We raised the issue in Committee. As I said, the Minister stated that sports clubs and other organisations could participate. Indeed, he went a little further and said that they would receive "class exemptions", but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, as a result of discussions with LOCOG, it has become clear subsequently that the blanket exemptions may not be as forthcoming as the Minister originally anticipated. That has served to underpin the growing concern among differing communities and sports groups that their role may be somewhat squeezed.
	We have heard from my hon. Friend about community groups such as Soul in the City and the YMCA, which share our concern that the Bill could undermine their good plans to involve youth in our communities, particularly in London, in building sports involvement as part of the Olympics as a whole. I have taken the opportunity to speak to a number of major worldwide sponsors and there is a lot of agreement that the community dimension of the games is vital and something that they will pursue vigorously.
	The Minister may want to consider the fact that, just as ambush marketing can undermine the value of sponsorship, so our communities and sporting organisations can feel marginalised by their treatment within this historic event. That is something that is well worth considering. He may wish to pursue that matter, as I have, in conversations directly with some of the sponsors, because it was most enlightening.
	Community groups can benefit from involvement in the Olympics in many ways, including through fund-raising events for teams. We must ensure that we involve every resident of our country, not just those living within the M25 or in the vicinity of the locations for the sporting events, in promoting grass-roots sports. The Bill is not explicit in its commitment to non-commercial, voluntary organisations. The amendment makes the Minister's verbal reassurances much more tangible and would provide a hook for those organisations to lobby LOCOG to agree a framework within which they can operate in support of the games. That will help many organisations such as the ones we have spoken about and others to plan their contributions to this historic celebration with a little more certainty.
	On amendment No. 7, the elements of the Bill that relate to advertising and marketing are highly regulated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, the IOC manuals relating to this aspect of the Bill are not freely available to us. While the Minister was kind enough to enable us to see extracts in Committee, they raised as many questions as they answered. He confirmed that the manuals would be subject to change until a date that has not yet been confirmed. Amendment No. 7 would ensure that, if a change is required in the manuals or in any aspect of the Bill that relates to advertising and marketing, the industry will be consulted. Any unforeseen impact on business could undermine not just the role of businesses and marketing in the Olympics, but the economic benefit of the Olympics for our country.
	My objective in speaking today is simple. We need to ensure that the London Olympics benefit as many people as possible and that we strike the right balance, on which we are rather short of the mark at the moment.

Richard Caborn: This group of amendments relates to the regulations that will be put in place under clause 18 to control advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues. The provisions are a direct result of the requirements of the IOC and the promises that we have given in signing the host city contract. They are measures that will make an important contribution to the viability and success of the London games.
	What I am also clear about, and what I have tried to provide reassurance about in Committee, is that we intend to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to the IOC's requirements. That means adopting a flexible and balanced approach and ensuring the regulations are appropriate for each and every venue.
	Amendment No. 2 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs when making advertising regulations under clause 18. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment. I share the desire of the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) to ensure that the games in 2012 benefit all sections of society and all parts of the country.
	As the IOC made clear in its memorandum to the Bill's Standing Committee, the rationale behind the requirements to control advertising is to maintain clean venues and to prevent the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the games. The memo states that
	"all venues must be free of commercial, political or religious advertising".
	While that statement does not explicitly refer to advertising by voluntary or community groups, I know that the IOC would not want us to create a situation where its clean venue policy is compromised. However, before I am accused of being unreasonable by inhibiting the good work of voluntary and community groups, I should reassure hon. Members that subsection (7)(b) of clause 18 allows for authorised advertising within the vicinity of Olympic venues and that we will consider the case for allowing some forms of advertising by voluntary or community groups.
	I can absolutely see the case for allowing some voluntary or sporting organisations to be able to hand out flyers to people leaving Olympic venues in order, for example, to encourage them to become sports volunteers in their community, or to visit their local sports hall to give handball a try for the first time and to gain that experience. However, that sort of activity must be done in a measured and controlled way if we are to maintain the IOC's clean venue policy and ensure the viability and success of both the London and future games. Clause 18(7) is the best way to make that happen, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
	Amendment No. 4 would include in the Bill a defined time limit during which the advertising regulations can apply. Clause 18(6) already requires that the regulations establish the period for which they will apply, and that they may apply only for such a period as is necessary to comply with the requirements of the host city contract. As I said earlier, we are determined to ensure that we apply those requirements in a sensible and reasonable way. In Committee, I said that the advertising regulations would not apply for longer than the Olympics period, which the Bill defines as starting four weeks before the opening ceremony.
	Having discussed this issue further with the IOC, I can confirm that any advertising restrictions will be in place two weeks before the opening ceremony at the absolute earliest, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. In reality, I envisage that the restrictions will apply for a much shorter period, especially for venues that host only one or two days of competition. Given the variety of time periods for which the restrictions will apply, I do not think it sensible to specify in the Bill the maximum period for which the regulations can apply. However, I hope that the Bill's existing provisions—particularly clause 18(6)—and the clear assurances that I have given will reassure the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that we intend to take a reasonable approach, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
	Amendment No. 5 would require advertising regulations to provide a specific exemption for advertising on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines.

Don Foster: rose—

Richard Caborn: I can reassure the House that anyone listening to a radio programme or reading in the vicinity of Olympic venues a newspaper that contains adverts will not be caught by our advertising restrictions. The hon. Member for Bath can therefore rest assured that such a person would not be prosecuted. I understand the concerns expressed about spectators being prevented from listening to their radios as they walk into the stadium. That is absolutely not our intention and we shall ensure that our regulations are drafted in such a way as to make that clear. Does the hon. Member for Bath still want to intervene?

Don Foster: indicated dissent.

Richard Caborn: That shows that, had the hon. Gentleman waited for those pearls of wisdom to fall from my lips, he would not have needed to intervene. I hope that, in the light of my reassurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.
	Finally, I turn to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the advertising industry before drawing up regulations under clause 18, and before varying the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. The advertising industry will obviously take a keen interest in the new advertising regulations and any changes to the words and phrases listed in schedule 3. We shall consult the advertising industry in drawing up regulations under clause 18—as we have done in drawing up the Bill—and in making any amendments to the lists of words and phrases in schedule 3. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 22, which, among other things, requires the Olympic delivery authority to liaise with the people likely to be affected by regulations expected to be made under clause 18.
	The advertising industry will not be the only stakeholders affected by the advertising regime; local businesses and residents, for example, may also have an interest in it. I am not sure, therefore, that it is helpful to widen the Bill's existing list of consultees, as it could never be exhaustive. In my view, the Bill contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that the interests of the advertising industry and of others are considered, and that their voices are heard. The Government and LOCOG have already established a very good dialogue with the advertising industry, and we shall continue to ensure they are fully engaged in the development of regulations under clause 18, and in any changes made to the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
	I turn to the question of the ambush market and exempting voluntary organisations and sports clubs from restrictions. Amendment No. 2 applies only to clause 18, which deals with advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues. Under schedule 3, which we shall debate later, we have provided that LOCOG can authorise people to associate themselves with the games. We should not create a loophole that can be exploited, but I do envisage voluntary community groups being given certain authorisation. We considered this very issue in drafting the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that creating such a blanket exemption would provide a very wide defence that could be open to abuse. For example, we might want to allow all local junior athletics clubs to associate themselves with the games; on the other hand, we might not want major football teams such as Manchester United to do so.
	We have sought to address this issue by giving LOCOG the ability to grant the authorisations provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 to schedule 3. The amendments that we made in Committee allow LOCOG to make class exemptions, and require it to maintain a public register of people, and of classes of people, who are authorised to associate themselves with the games. Those amendments were tabled with schools and voluntary organisations specifically in mind.
	I undertake to consider exempting mobile phones from the advertising restrictions when the regulations are made. We intend to be reasonable in our approach to regulations made under clause 18, but as was made clear in Committee, between now and 2012 there will be considerable advances in technology and in the ways of the ambush market. I have given a commitment in respect of newspapers, magazines, radio and television, but I cannot provide a blanket exemption for mobile telephony at this stage. Although I can reassure the hon. Member for Bath that the mobile services currently available will almost certainly be exempt, we must future-proof this provision by leaving it somewhat open-ended, so that we can deal with any advances in technology between now and 2012.

Don Foster: Before the Minister moves on to the two extremely exciting Government amendments, I should point out that although he talked about his commitment to consulting the industry about the development of regulations under clause 18, he did not deal with the reference in amendment No. 7 to consulting
	"those who have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry".
	Surely the Minister accepts that, for example, the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre needs to be consulted on the regulations, not least because, otherwise, it could pre-clear an advertisement that is subsequently seen to fall foul of the new regulations. Presumably, it could even be sued as a result of such pre-clearing. Will the Minister clarify that point?

Richard Caborn: I would expect the BACC to be consulted, but let me put this issue into context. We are talking about a national organisation, LOCOG, which is responsible to the IOC. Its current chairman—hopefully he will continue as chairman through to 2012—is Lord Coe, who is supported ably by Keith Mills. These people will not go out of their way to take the draconian steps that some Members have suggested this evening. We are giving LOCOG powers that we believe are commensurate with its fulfilling its obligations to the IOC. I am sure that those people will interpret the powers that they have been given and the actions that they can take with common sense. There will be consultation and we shall take a common-sense attitude to it.
	We have debated bearing down on the games' cost implications for the council tax, but we should remember that they will also provide massive income. In order to reassure the main sponsors and to maximise the revenue stream from them, we must ensure, for example, that we provide clean stadiums. The Government and LOCOG have a duty—not just to the IOC but to council tax payers in London and to others who will finance the games—to ensure that we deliver on these issues.
	We tabled Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 after the constructive debate in Committee of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. He takes great credit for these amendments, although I wish my officials had changed the odd word or two and given the Government greater ownership of the amendments. In any case, I concede that the hon. Gentleman or his researcher drafted the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to amenity and public safety when drawing up advertising and street trading regulations under clauses 18 and 24. I agree with comments made in Committee that strengthening the requirement to have regard to amenity and public safety will ensure that the regulations are appropriate and fitting for each and every venue. I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for provoking the debate in Committee and am pleased that we are able to come back with these amendments to the Bill at this stage.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for the reassurances that he has provided. It is fair to say that both sides of the House wish to achieve the same aim: we are simply coming at it from slightly different directions. The achievement tonight is that we have moved closer together. In view of that, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment made: No. 19, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 24
	 — 
	Street Trading, &c.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 17, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 35
	 — 
	Regional Development Agencies

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 25, line 5 [Clause 35], leave out subsection (2).

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 27.

Don Foster: I shall leave the Minister to comment on the Government amendments and concentrate on amendment No. 15.
	All hon. Members will be aware that from the beginning we have wanted every nation and region of this country to participate in and benefit from the Olympic and Paralympic games of 2012.
	We appear to have done much business in Committee on 18 October, as every reference I have made to Committee has been from that date. It is therefore appropriate to cite the Minister's comments on this issue:
	"The 2012 Olympic competitions will take place across the country, and every region will have the opportunity to benefit and to capitalise on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 138.]
	We all agree with that. In Loughborough, Bath and Sheffield, we are all looking forward to all the nations and regions benefiting from the games. For those of us who live in England, the regional development agencies will have a crucial role to play in helping to facilitate the participation of the regions and sub-regions. Therefore, nobody would be surprised to see that clause 35 states:
	"The purposes of a regional development agency (listed in section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45)) shall include the purpose of preparing for the London Olympics."
	That is right and proper and I am delighted that it is the case. However, hon. Members who have studied the Bill will note that the clause also states:
	"But a regional development agency shall not do anything by virtue only of subsection (1) except at the request of the Olympic Delivery Authority."
	In other words, the RDAs, which should play a key role in helping the regions and sub-regions to prepare for the Olympic games, will be able to do so only if they are authorised by the ODA. The ODA will have an iron grip on RDAs' ability to prepare for the Olympics.
	The RDAs have become increasingly concerned by clause 35, largely because—I confess—I kept drawing it to their attention and asking what they thought about it. They believe that it could limit their scope in preparing for the games. They are concerned about the possible confusion over the relative powers and leverages of the respective parties involved. They are concerned about the perceived leadership role given to the ODA over regional involvement in the games, instead of a co-ordinating role. The RDAs are also concerned about the potential funding consequences if the ODA asks them to do things outside their normal corporate plans or funding limits.
	I have no doubt that the Minister will assure me that the RDAs need not be concerned, but I hope that he will spell out in some detail how he sees the relationship between the RDAs and the ODA operating. We already know that the RDAs are working actively to promote participation and involvement in the games and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that that work will not be put in jeopardy.
	If the RDAs are to be in some way limited by a body, should it be the ODA? The ODA is largely responsible for the major infrastructure work and transport plans, and in some parts of the country the RDAs will be involved. The South West of England Regional Development Agency, for example, will be involved in the infrastructure in Weymouth, where the sailing will take place. It may also be involved in work around the beautiful city of Bath, because of our potential involvement. But the RDAs will want to be involved in far more than the necessary structural work.
	LOCOG is the other body with a crucial role to play and hon. Members who did not have the chance to participate in our deliberations in Committee may not know where it fits in on the wonderful diagrams that we received from the Minister. LOCOG will have a nations and regions sub-committee, led by Charles Allen. We all admire the work that he did in helping us to win the bid and I am sure that we will admire the work that he will do chairing that reinvigorated and reformed nations and regions sub-committee.
	It is interesting to note that when the sub-committee had its first meeting recently, it described its remit. At its inauguration, Charles Allen said that
	"this group has a vital role in making sure that nations and regions really benefit from London's Olympic Bid".
	According to a media release, the sub-committee then discussed issues including how best to engage people across the UK in the bid; how the business and sporting benefits could be put in reach for everyone, including tourism, jobs, contracts, sporting events and more; links with the arts, culture and education; auditing the regional facilities available for use in the run-up to the 2012 games; and providing practical advice on applying for and running preparation camps for the games. That is the remit of a LOCOG sub-committee, yet those things sound remarkably like many of the areas of responsibility of RDAs.

Peter Bone: Wellingborough sees the Olympic games as a great opportunity, especially from the tourism point of view, and I welcome our success in having the Olympics in the UK. My concern is that the RDAs do not know where Wellingborough is, as we are right at the edge of one, so will the hon. Gentleman explain whether we would be better off in Wellingborough with the ODA or the RDA deciding how we should prepare?

Don Foster: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me to explain where Wellingborough was; if he had, I should have been highly embarrassed. I am delighted that he did not.
	A large number of organisations will play a part in ensuring that we deliver the best-ever Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012. The RDAs will have a crucial role, as will the ODA, LOCOG and many other organisations. The amendment is trying to tease from the Minister not which organisations should be involved, but whether we have got right the relationship between them. Although I am deeply concerned about the ODA's apparent iron grip on the RDAs, if there is to be an iron grip, should not it be the responsibility of LOCOG? I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that he will be able to tell the hon. Gentleman where Wellingborough is.

Andy Reed: Strangely, a consensus is building across the Chamber. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). As he knows, in Committee I asked what the structure for the nations and regions would look like. In the east midlands, we had a chart that showed our suggestions for part of that. For the reasons that he outlined, it looked quite complicated because it included the supporting blocks, such as tourism, sport and economic regeneration.
	I understand the problems of Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. I was European officer for the region, so I know only too well that those counties find it hard to regard themselves as part of the east midlands. I hope that over time they will come to love the rest of the east midlands as much as we love them.
	I look forward to the Minister's response, as my understanding is that—as the hon. Member for Bath suggested—all those groups should feed directly into the RDA as the sole representative, so that we have a single point of contact. But there are dangers. As I have been involved with the Bill and taken some interest in it, people from all over the region have been asking me what they should do and how to get the process started. Over the past few months, part of our remit has been to encourage people to have ideas but to slow down until the organisation is in place, so that we can co-ordinate them, through the RDA and the nations and regions sub-committee, into LOCOG.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the slight contradiction in subsection (2)—that the ODA, which, I understand, is really the delivery agency for building the infrastructure, mainly in London but also in Weymouth and other Olympic venues, is a different body. I look forward to an explanation, as I am concerned to ensure that there is a single route and that we do not complicate it so much that none of us knows how to proceed, as happens in other areas of the sporting world. This is a golden opportunity to lay clearly on the line who is responsible and who has the final say, so that all the people who have great enthusiasm for the Olympics know how to co-ordinate all their fantastic ideas—such as those I have heard about from people in Leicestershire—and how to get a yes from the nations and regions group, so that we can deliver between now and 2012.

Hugh Robertson: I have a parochial concern relating to my Kent constituency that is also shared by Essex. Both counties are geographically next to the Olympics in the east end and feel constrained by having to work through a regional sports board, which, in the case of Kent, is diametrically on the opposite side of London. The Minister is aware of those concerns and has kindly agreed to fix a meeting with the chairman of the nations and regions sub-committee, and I thank him for that.
	I shall leave amendment No. 15 entirely to the Minister and comment on Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 27. The Minister warned us in Committee of the need for the amendments and included them in his briefing to Opposition parties a fortnight ago. They streamline the process of compulsory purchase for special land for the Olympic park, and clarify the fact that special land can be built on for Olympic purposes. They also allow RDAs to purchase compulsorily Crown land for the 2012 Olympics.
	Clearly, if we are to meet tight construction deadlines, it is vital to remove possible delays from the process. Provided the Minister is happy to undertake today to write to us laying out the exact basis on which that will be done, and the process that will be used, I am happy to signal my party's consent.

Richard Caborn: Before I move on the detail of the amendment, I want to note that the nations and regions sub-committee under the chairmanship of Charles Allen is performing an extremely worthwhile task of co-ordinating not only RDAs but regional sports boards. All the regions have been asked to prepare a strategy, as we want to maximise across the whole UK the benefits that will flow from 2012. We hope to put a full-time person in each nation and region in the early part of next year to ensure that that co-ordination brings a two-way stream of information. We heard earlier about the supply chains that will be necessary for building the infrastructure in London and we hope that such co-ordination will facilitate that development. There is no difference of opinion about the opportunities, the structure that we are setting up, or the leadership of the sub-committee by Charles Allen. I have ministerial responsibility for that, too.
	The amendment is similar to one proposed and withdrawn by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in Committee. I apologise if I did not make it clear at that point why we cannot accept the proposal, and I am sorry if I repeat some of what I said then. RDAs are already able to engage in valuable preparatory work for the London Olympics. Before the ODA exists, the London Development Agency, in particular, has put in much valuable work, to which I have already referred. The LDA is leading on the process of land acquisition in the Lea Valley, and the Government amendments in this group are designed to make sure that the process is successful.
	The RDAs are able to undertake that sort of work under existing regeneration powers and the Bill does nothing to change that. So RDAs will still be able to buy land and built facilities with an Olympic purpose, without having to consult anybody, provided that they are also pursuing one of their existing statutory purposes.
	The Bill provides RDAs with a new purpose—to prepare for the London Olympics—which means that if it proves necessary they will be able to buy land and build facilities that have only an Olympic purpose and provide no other lasting benefit. It is clear that that is an additional power; they can add it to their portfolio if they are asked to develop or deliver an Olympic-specific project. It is unlikely that such a power will ever be needed, but we have provided for it on the "just-in-case" principle. We do not want to be left in a situation where the ODA needs an RDA to buy some land in Weymouth, for example, by compulsory purchase, but the RDA is not able to do so.
	Subsection (2) states that an RDA may use that new, Olympic-specific power only at the ODA's request. That is because we do not want RDAs all over the country to be carrying out work for the Olympics where that work is clearly not part of the RDAs' general mission to regenerate their local areas. The Olympics will provide many opportunities for regeneration and we welcome and encourage such activity, but we do not want the games to result in white elephants all over the country.

Don Foster: The Minister is repeating much of what he said in Committee, which, frankly, was unacceptable then and is unacceptable now. May I ask him a specific question? In the south-west, our RDA is in the process—properly—of establishing an Olympic delivery structure, which involves Sport England and the Government office for the south-west and will involve Dorset county council. The RDA is considering how to liaise with the seven sub-regions so that they can benefit from and participate in the Olympics in 2012. The Minister is talking about land acquisition, but I am much more interested in all the other activities, such as promoting tourism, attracting visitors and increasing participation in sport. Will he assure me that the 1998 legislation enables those organisations to do that, and that they will not be found to be in breach of the existing legislation?

Richard Caborn: Absolutely not. In 1998 I took that Bill through Parliament, setting up the RDAs, and they were founded on exactly those principles. In fact, tourism has in the recent past been added to their remit, and therefore they have every power. Nothing in the description that the hon. Gentleman has given would require a departure from the powers that were given to RDAs in the 1998 Act, because that will be about sustainable regeneration and development and wealth creation for that region. The power that is given in this Bill relates to projects that are Olympic-specific and do not have after that use a purpose for which the RDAs were set up—regeneration and wealth creation. If, for example, a stadium was built and then knocked down after the Olympics because there was no after-use, that would not be within the remit of the RDA, but it would be given the powers to do that, at the behest of the ODA, so it could build that facility and then knock it down, and that would be the power that was given by this Bill to the RDAs. I hope that that is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Now I have lost my place, but I think that I have adequately explained to the hon. Member for Bath—well, I am not sure about adequately, but I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
	I shall now discuss amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 27. Amendments Nos. 17 and 27 are proof of the Government's commitment to ensuring that the RDAs have the powers that they need to help the process of Olympic development. It is vital that the land needed for the Olympics is acquired quickly and without legal doubt attached to its status. The timetable for acquisition, remediation and construction is so tight that even a delay of a couple of months could be disastrous. The amendments that we have tabled address all the problems that could possibly obstruct this process, wherever an RDA is acquiring land, at any site anywhere the United Kingdom. They ensure that the necessary land can be assembled on budget, without delay and that it can be used for Olympic development.
	We are proposing these amendments at a relatively late stage because the need for them became clear only in the short period after 6 July when the project became a reality and the plans were worked through in detail. As a result of that work, we have tabled amendment No. 17, which would have four crucial effects wherever an RDA purchased land for the purpose of preparing for the Olympics.
	First, paragraph (a) removes the need for a special parliamentary process to approve the compulsory purchase of "special land" where equivalent land is not being provided in exchange. Special land consists of allotments, open space and commons. The special parliamentary process would take up to six months and simply cannot be accommodated in the timetable for Olympic construction. I am satisfied that no one will suffer unduly as a result of this step. While the LDA is not able to provide "equally advantageous land" in sufficient amounts to replace all the special land that will be used during the games, those who make specific use of the land will, I believe, get a good deal.
	The LDA is committed by conditions of its planning permission to provide replacement facilities to those affected by the purchase of special land. Footballers, allotment holders and cyclists will all be provided with replacement facilities for the duration of the period. After the games, they will get new facilities—East Marsh will be restored and allotments and a velo park will be provided within the Olympic park itself. And the park will provide more open space to the residents of the lower Lea valley than currently exists today, so no one, we believe, will lose out.
	Paragraph (b) of amendment No. 17 has the effect of extinguishing all existing rights over land acquisition, while providing for compensation to those who have rights removed. It is essentially the same provision that exists in the Housing Act 1985 to allow local housing authorities to develop land after it has been cleared. The risk that we are addressing through this provision is that there are a large number of restrictive covenants that constitute potential obstacles to development of that park. There are approximately 500 covenants affecting land needed for the Olympics in east London. Most are deemed unenforceable, but there are a number of covenants that case law suggests might be enforced, preventing the development of the land. These include a covenant that prevents the land on which the Olympic stadium will be sited being used for sports halls, and a covenant preventing land needed for the main access ramp to the stadium from being used "for athletic or sporting purposes". Clearly, we cannot carry such a risk, and therefore this amendment is crucial.
	Paragraph (c) of the amendment provides absolute clarity that "special land", once acquired, can be built on. There is some unhelpful case law at present that casts doubt on the meaning of the relevant provision in the 1998 Act, which allows RDAs to use "special land" in accordance with planning permission. We want to ensure that we run no risk of legal challenge or hold-up, and the amendment to achieve that is before the House.
	Finally, paragraph (d) allows the compulsory purchase of Crown land and any interest in Crown land. At present there is some doubt about whether it is legally possible, and while we are not aware of a particular area of land where this is a problem, we would not want to be faced with that problem at a later stage. The one area of Crown land affected by the LDA's initial CPO, around Stratford City, has been the subject of successful negotiations between the LDA, the Government and London and Continental Railways. We do not expect that the new powers will be needed to acquire that land, but we want to provide a failsafe, to ensure that the RDAs have sufficient powers to take control of Crown land anywhere in London or in the UK if necessary. The provision may never need to be used, but we believe that it is an important safeguard.
	Amendment No. 18 allows for the provisions relating to compulsory purchase to be commenced immediately on Royal Assent, to ensure that they apply to the LDA's existing CPO as it goes through.
	Amendment No. 27 allows for the provisions in amendment No. 17 to be backdated where that is necessary. Provisions amending the law on special land and Crown land must apply to the two major CPOs that the LDA has already launched, on 10 October and 16 November. We have therefore provided that these provisions are, or can be, backdated to 1 October 2005, to ensure that there is no special parliamentary process needed for the "special land" currently being acquired; that such "special land" can be built on for Olympic purposes; and that any Crown land—or interests in Crown land—that falls in the area of the CPO could be compulsorily purchased if need be.
	The power to override restrictive covenants needs to be broader in its effect, since the LDA has been acquiring land in the Olympic park area for the past two years. It needs to be absolutely sure that it can overcome any problematic covenants that are attached to this land. We have therefore proposed a power to provide in the commencement order for the extinguishing of covenants on land that had been acquired before commencement. But rights will be extinguished only from the date of commencement.
	These are complex amendments, but they are tightly focused to deal with specific problems that we could face, and they are tied to the specific circumstances where an RDA is acquiring land for Olympic purposes. They are essential to the success of the public sector construction project.

Don Foster: The Minister has convinced us all with the way in which he has spoken to his amendments, and I for one have no problem in supporting them, but, as I said in an intervention, he has not convinced me yet in respect of his objection to amendment No. 15, so just to make my life and the life of the RDAs easier, I am going to ask the Minister to intervene on me when I ask him a simple question. Can he give me and the House an absolute assurance that any RDA that is currently, under its existing abilities under the 1998 legislation, using its money and time to co-ordinate or develop Olympic-related volunteering activities, Olympic-related jobs and contract activities, Olympic-related sporting events, Olympic cultural and artistic events and Olympic educational activities, and is giving advice to bodies about how, for instance, they set up training camps for visiting teams and is conducting, or plans to conduct, an audit of the facilities suitable for use during the Olympics, is acting within existing legislation?

Richard Caborn: Yes, the RDAs can take those actions.

Don Foster: With that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
	Amendment made: No. 17, in page 25, line 6, at end insert—
	'(2A)   In relation to the purchase of land by a regional development agency for the purpose of preparing for the London Olympics (whether or not by virtue of subsection (1) and whether or not the purchase has another purpose also)—
	(a)   section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) (open spaces, &c.) shall not apply,
	(b)   section 295 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (extinguishment of rights over land acquired) shall apply (with any necessary modifications) as it applies to a purchase by a local housing authority,
	(c)   no enactment regulating the use of commons, open spaces or allotments shall prevent or restrict the use of the land for construction, other works or any other purpose (but this paragraph does not disapply a requirement for planning permission), and
	(d)   any enactment permitting compulsory purchase shall be treated as applying to an interest in land whether or not it, or any superior or inferior interest, is held by the Crown.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 39
	 — 
	Commencement and Duration

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 27, line 23, after '3,' insert—
	'(ea)   section 35(2A)(a) and (d),'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 27, line 23, leave out second 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 16.

Richard Caborn: This group of Government amendments addresses a very constructive point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in Committee and a smaller drafting point that we noticed afterwards. We are very magnanimous this evening, if I may say so.
	Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are necessary to allow the commencement of clause 37 on Royal Assent. Clause 37 applies the provisions of the Bill as appropriate to Northern Ireland. Thus, clause 37 on Northern Ireland will be brought into line with clause 36 on Scotland, which will commence on Royal Assent.
	Amendment No. 16 follows the suggestion made by the Liberal Democrats in Committee that the short title should include a specific reference to the Paralympic games. I indicated in Committee that I agreed with that principle, as a central part of our bid was that the London Olympics would be an inclusive games. As many hon. Members know, London staged the first Paralympics in 1948, and we want to ensure that the 2012 Paralympics are the best so far.
	I could not accept the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee because it was important to get the IOC's view on the exact wording—[Interruption.] I hear laughter from the hon. Member for Bath. I promised to consider the issue and my officials have been in touch with the IOC. The result is the proposed amendment to make the short title the "London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill".

Hugh Robertson: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are not contentious, and Government amendment No. 16 has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like publicly to thank the Minister for fulfilling the promise that he made in Committee to introduce such amendments on Report and, indeed, to join in the general congratulations to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on proposing them in the first place.
	As I said in Committee, I should like to add my strong support to the proposals in amendment No. 16. Paralympic sport has been moving up the sporting agenda considerably in recent years. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, at the 2004 Athens Paralympic games, the Great British team finished second in the medals table, with 94 medals, including a staggering total of 35 golds. The team achieved medals in 11 sports, and in doing so met the target set by Phil Lane of the British Paralympic Association. It is only right, therefore, that Paralympic sport is recorded as part of the Bill. Once again, I reiterate my full support.

Don Foster: Earlier, we discussed another amendment, the subject of which had been proposed in Committee by the Liberal Democrats, and the Minister went away to check it and has returned this evening with such an amendment. He was somewhat churlish in his attack on his own civil servants for not returning with a slightly differently worded amendment on that occasion. So I hope that, on this occasion, he will have the good grace to thank his civil servants who have suggested an amendment that is marginally different from the one that I proposed in Committee—the word "games" has been added. I congratulate the Minister and his civil servants on their ingenuity.
	I am genuinely delighted that—having consulted the IOC—as the Minister found it necessary to do and clearly did—he is willing to accept such an amendment and to do what no one disputed from the outset: give equal emphasis to the Olympic and Paralympic games. As I said in Committee, it is worth remembering that Seb Coe, who deserves a great deal of praise for his role in achieving our success in getting the games, said on 29 August:
	"We won our bid as one bid for both the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games."
	I am delighted that that fact will now be reflected in the Bill's title.
	Accepting such an amendment and placing equal emphasis on the Paralympic and Olympic games emphasises the responsibility on all of us to ensure that the games, London and the UK will be standard bearers for inclusion. We must place huge emphasis on ensuring that both the Olympic and the Paralympic games and all the facilities that relate to their provision are generally accessible to disabled people.
	We have not had an opportunity on Report to discuss accessibility for disabled people, but the Minister will be well aware that there are continuing concerns about the need for more action in making transport facilities in London, venues and so on more friendly for disabled users. He shares my concern about that and has given assurances about it, but I hope that proposing amendment No. 16 to give equal emphasis to the Paralympic games will also remind him of the promises and commitments that he has made in respect of ensuring appropriate facilities for disabled people throughout the period of the Olympic and Paralympic games.

Richard Caborn: I hear what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, and we went over this in Committee. We are very proud that we were the first country to hold the Paralympic games in 1948. Overall, we acknowledge the major contribution made by the Paralympics and disabled sport generally. Broadly speaking, sport across the UK responds to that. I hope that we will be at the forefront in designing stadiums and other facilities for the Olympics with disabled people in mind, and I am sure that we will deliver on that.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 26, in page 27, line 24, at end insert
	', and
	(g)   section 37.'.
	No. 27, in page 28, line 10, at end insert—
	'(9)   In respect of section 35(2A)—
	(a)   paragraph (a) shall have effect in relation to compulsory purchase orders made on or after 1st October 2005,
	(b)   an order bringing paragraph (b) into force on a date ("the commencement date")—
	(i)   may provide for paragraph (b) to have effect in relation to purchases (whether compulsory or voluntary) completed before, on or after the commencement date, but
	(ii)   must include provision modifying section 295 of the Housing Act 1985 in its application by virtue of section 35(2A)(b) so that extinguishment of rights and easements takes effect, in the case of a purchase completed before the commencement date, on the commencement date,
	(c)   an order bringing paragraph (c) into force on a date ("the commencement date")—
	(i)   may provide for paragraph (c) to have effect in relation to purchases (whether compulsory or voluntary) completed on or after 1st October 2005, but
	(ii)   shall not affect the lawfulness of anything done before the commencement date, and
	(d)   paragraph (d) shall be treated as having taken effect on 1st October 2005.'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Clause 41
	 — 
	Short Title

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 28, line 34, leave out 'Olympics' and insert
	'Olympic Games and Paralympic Games'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	'Transfer Schemes

Introduction 1  In this Schedule—
	"the Authority" means the Olympic Delivery Authority, "transfer scheme" means a scheme under section [Olympic Delivery Authority: transfer schemes], and,
	"specified person" means a person specified in section [Olympic Delivery Authority: transfer schemes](3).
	Obligation to assist Secretary of State 2  The Authority and the specified persons shall on request give the Secretary of State information or assistance in connection with a direction to prepare a transfer scheme which the Secretary of State has given or may give.
	Content of transfer scheme 3   (1)   A transfer scheme may, in particular, make provision in connection with land.
	(2)   In particular, a transfer scheme may— (a)   require the grant of an estate, interest or right;
	(b)   require the creation of an estate, interest or right for the purpose of being transferred;
	(c)   provide for transfer on financial or other terms;
	(d)   impose liabilities on the Authority;
	(e)   impose liabilities on the transferor.
	4  A transfer scheme—
	(a)   may transfer property, rights or liabilities whether or not they would otherwise be capable of being transferred,
	(b)   may transfer rights and liabilities under an enactment, and
	(c)   may dispense with a requirement for consent (whether arising for an enactment, an instrument or an agreement).
	5  In specifying property, rights or liabilities to be transferred a transfer scheme—
	(a)   may use any manner of description (which may include reference to criteria specified in the scheme or to be determined in accordance with the scheme),
	(b)   may provide for exceptions, and
	(c)   may provide for the division of property, rights and liabilities in a manner specified in the scheme or to be determined in accordance with the scheme.
	6  A transfer scheme may make provision—
	(a)   for the resolution of disputes as to the effect of the scheme to be referred to arbitration, and
	(b)   for a certificate given by an arbitrator as to the effect of the transfer scheme to be conclusive.
	7  A transfer scheme may make consequential, incidental or transitional provision and may, in particular—
	(a)   provide for anything done by or in relation to a specified person to have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority,
	(b)   permit anything (which may include legal proceedings) which is in the process of being done by or in relation to a specified person when a provision of a transfer scheme takes effect, to have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority, and
	(c)   may provide for a reference to a specified person in an agreement (whether written or not), instrument or other document to be treated as a reference to the Authority.
	Exclusions 8   (1)   Transfer of property, rights or liabilities under a transfer scheme shall be disregarded for the purposes of a provision of a contract or other instrument which refers to transfer or disposal (whether so as to confer a right to terminate or vary or otherwise).
	(2)   Nothing in a transfer scheme shall give rise, in relation to land or an interest or estate in land or other property, to any of the following— (a)   a right of reverter,
	(b)   a right of pre-emption,
	(c)   a right of forfeiture,
	(d)   a right to compensation, or
	(e)   an option or similar right.
	9  Nothing in a transfer scheme relating to rights in connection with a contract of employment shall affect the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1794).
	Modification of scheme 10   (1)   This paragraph applies where—
	(a)   a specified person has made a transfer scheme, but (b)   a transfer under the scheme has not yet taken effect.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may—
	(a)   require the specified person to modify the transfer scheme, in so far as it relates to the transfer, in such manner as the Secretary of State may specify,
	(b)   specify the date by which the modified scheme is to be prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State, and
	(c)   specify a date on which the modified scheme is to take effect if approved by the Secretary of State.
	(3)   The Secretary of State may not require a specified person to modify a scheme unless—
	(a)   he has consulted any person whom he thinks may be affected by the modification, and
	(b)   the Mayor of London consents.'. —[Mr. Caborn.] Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	London Olympics Association Right

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 44, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 22
	Amendment No. 10, in page 46, line 4, at end insert
	'in any editorial usage including without limitation'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 46, line 5, leave out 'as a necessary incident' and insert 'in the course'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 46, line 7, leave out 'as a necessary incident' and insert 'in the course'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 46, line 8, leave out 'about the London Olympics' and insert
	'including news and current affairs'.
	Government amendment No. 23
	Amendment No. 14, in page 46, line 8, at end insert—
	'(   )   for the purposes of criticism and review, or'.
	Government amendment No. 24
	Amendment No. 8, in page 46, line 21, at end insert—
	'Duration of right
	9A  The London Olympics association right shall have effect from 31st December 2007 and shall expire in accordance with the provisions of this Act on 31st December 2012.'.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 46, line 21, at end insert—
	'Groundless threats of legal proceedings
	9A   (1)   Where the London Organising Committee, the British Olympic Association or a person authorised under paragraph 4 threatens any other person or company with proceedings for infringement of the London Olympics association right, any person aggrieved by the threat may bring an action against the London Organising Committee, the British Olympic Association or the authorised person (as the case may be) for any such relief as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
	(2)   Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the claimant shall be entitled to the following relief—
	(a)   a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
	(b)   an injunction against the continuance of the threats; and
	(c)   such damages, if any, as he has reasonably sustained by reason of the threats.
	(3)   If the defendant proves that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened constitute or, if done, would constitute an infringement of the London Olympics association right, the claimant shall not be entitled to the relief claimed.
	(4)   An action may not be brought under this paragraph if the person who made the threat has made an application, or brought an action, for an infringement of the London Olympics association right against the threatened person in relation to the act, or proposed act, to which the threat related.
	(5)   An action under this paragraph may not be continued if the person who made the threat makes an application, or brings an action, for an infringement of the London Olympics association right against the threatened person in relation to the act, or proposed act, to which the threat related.
	(6)   If the defendant would be entitled to make an application, or bring an action, against a person for an infringement of the London Olympics association right, the defendant may, in an action under sub-paragraph (1), make a counterclaim for any relief to which the defendant would be entitled.'.

Richard Caborn: Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22 clarify the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can seek to remove words or phrases from the list contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 3 to the Bill. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State can seek to remove words from the list if she feels that the London Olympic association right is becoming too unwieldy or that it is placing an unacceptable burden on businesses or advertisers. However, the amendments do not change the position that the Secretary of State can only add to, or vary, the lists in schedule 3 where that is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of the London Olympics. Any proposed change to the lists must still be debated and agreed to by both Houses of Parliament.
	Amendment No. 23 brings the exemptions in schedule 3 into line with those that we have provided in relation the Olympics association right in schedule 2. The exemption relates to incidental inclusion in artistic, literary or dramatic works.
	Amendment No. 24 will simply remove a drafting anomaly that crept into paragraph 9 of schedule 3. It removes the word "controlled" because the concept of a controlled representation is relevant to schedule 2, but not schedule 3.
	I come now to the remaining amendments that relate to schedule 3. Amendment No. 8 would delay the commencement of the provisions in schedule 3 until 31 December 2007, although it is intended that the schedule will come into force on Royal Assent. The amendment would also cause schedule 3 to expire at the end of 2012, but clause 39(8) already provides for that.
	I understand that the advertising industry is concerned about the practical application of schedule 3 and the possibility that its members could unwittingly or unknowingly infringe the London Olympics association right in the period immediately after Royal Assent. However, that does not change the principle that we should prevent people from commercially exploiting the London games, whether they do so now or in the weeks immediately before the opening ceremony in 2012.
	There is also a practical reason why the provisions should commence on Royal Assent. Over the coming months, LOCOG will be approaching and identifying sponsors for 2012. It needs to be able to do that in a market free from unauthorised or ambush marketing. A high-profile campaign that ambushed the 2012 games now could harm LOCOG's ability to attract the sponsorship that it needs, thus, in effect, preventing it from raising the money that is needed to finance the games.
	Both we and LOCOG realise that there is some uncertainty, especially for advertisers, about what people can and cannot do under the new provisions. LOCOG is already working closely with the advertising industry to provide its members with advice and guidance on interpreting and applying the new provisions. Keith Mills met representatives of the advertising industry on 31 October to discuss their concerns, and last week he wrote to the Advertising Association to establish a process for how LOCOG and the Advertising Association can work together in the future.
	In Keith's latest letter, he says that LOCOG will take a sympathetic view of any infringements that occur immediately after the Bill comes into force on the assumption that they are likely to be inadvertent. However, LOCOG must have the power, and reserve the right, to take action against any persistent and malicious infringements in those early months by people who deliberately exploit the good will of the games. The approach that we have adopted strikes the right balance between the need to protect the Olympic brand and the need to ensure that advertisers are appropriately informed about how the new provisions will work. I thus ask the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) not to press amendment No. 8 to a Division.
	Amendment No. 9 would allow people to bring a claim against LOCOG if it unjustifiably threatened to bring proceedings against them for a breach of schedule 3. In essence, the amendment aims to prevent LOCOG from acting in an unjustifiably heavy-handed manner when enforcing the provisions in schedule 3. We agree with hon. Members that that is an important principle, and we have already provided for it in paragraph 10(h) of schedule 3. Paragraph 10(h) will allow people to take action in relation to groundless threats regarding the London Olympics association right in the same way in which they currently can in relation to the Olympics association right under the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995.
	LOCOG has already said that its enforcement of schedule 3 will be proportionate and the steps that it has already taken bear that out. The experience of previous host cities is that a sensible balance is found and the organising committee, businesses and advertisers work closely together. I am sure that that will also be the case in London. The existing provisions in the Bill, the levers that the Government have in place with LOCOG, and LOCOG's commitment in the area mean that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that the powers in schedule 3 are not abused.
	Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 all relate to the editorial and journalistic exemptions that we have created in paragraph 8 of schedule 3 to ensure that any form of legitimate editorial or journalistic work does not infringe the London Olympics association right. The principle of a journalistic and editorial exemption is obviously crucial. The proper balance must be struck between protecting the commercial viability of the London games on the one hand and preserving legitimate editorial and journalistic comment on the other. In particular, we must be careful to avoid a situation in which someone is able to exploit the games commercially by hiding behind a journalistic defence.
	We believe that the careful exemptions that we have crafted in paragraph 8 of the schedule achieve that. They safeguard the London Olympics association right and maintain the essential freedom of the press. The inclusion of the term "necessary incident" in our proposed editorial and journalistic exemption is designed to prevent gratuitous use of the London Olympics. We want to prevent the proliferation of advertorials, the real motive of which is commercial gain, rather than genuine editorial comment.
	It is also important to remember that for the purposes of schedule 3, people create an association between themselves and the games only if, in the course of trade, they suggest a commercial or contractual relationship, or a corporate or structural connection, with the games.
	It would be unlikely that most editorial or journalistic works would create such an association. However, we understand the concerns of the print and broadcast media about the issue and we have been discussing the matter with them over the past few months. I can reassure them and hon. Members that only overt and explicit attempts to create an association between a media owner, or other entities, and the Olympics will constitute an infringement under our provisions. All legitimate editorial and journalistic practices will be exempt from the provisions in schedule 3.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would ensure that news, current affairs, criticism and review were all covered by our journalistic exemptions. Again, I confirm that the current drafting of the Bill exempts such journalistic practice. We have been very clear when settling the policy that underlies the Bill that all legitimate editorial and journalistic practices will be exempt from infringing the London Olympic association right. We are confident that the Bill, as drafted, addresses the concerns that hon. Members have raised.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's introductory remarks and some of the assurances that he has put on the record, which go a long way towards resolving our concerns. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept that it is necessary for me to try to tease out a few more assurances from him as I discuss the amendments.
	I have no problems whatsoever with Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I do not think that I have a problem with Government amendment No. 23, but I might have. I would be grateful for some clarification of that amendment because its effect will depend very much on the way in which its words are interpreted. The phrase
	"as an incidental inclusion in"
	could have many different meanings. The amendment makes it clear that the wording comes from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 31 of the Act states:
	"Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme."
	However, the phrase "incidental inclusion" is not defined in that Act, and it is not being defined in the Bill.
	No doubt, the Minister has researched the matter thoroughly and will be aware that the leading case on the definition of "incidental inclusion" is the 2003 Court of Appeal judgment in the case of the Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. Panini UK Ltd. The court decided that the test of "incidental inclusion" should consider why a particular reference had been made, and whether that was for commercial or artistic reasons. Panini sold stickers of football players with photos showing them in their premier league kit, including the premier league logo. It was decided that that was not incidental, as the use of the logo was essential to the object for which the images were created. Although intentional and deliberate inclusion of copyright work may still be incidental, if the work in which it is included is intended to serve a commercial purpose it is unlikely to be deemed incidental.
	Will the Minister give us a clear indication of the definition that he has in mind for the word "incidental" in the legislation? He may find it helpful to look at that judgment, as it considers the motives for incidental inclusion. As he rightly pointed out, what matters is whether someone is seeking to make an unfair commercial gain for exploitative purposes. He may find that interpretation helpful and he may wish to put it firmly on the record. If that is the case, we would support him as long as we do not implement such an interpretation too harshly, as we could limit many activities if we are not careful. If we go too far down the commercial route we could create difficulties for television broadcasts. For example, a programme may be commercially motivated because it wishes to make money from advertising transmitted during the broadcast. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister provided clarification, either now or later.
	I wish to focus on the amendments on editorial content. The rules governing editorial content and the London Olympics association right are problematic because they are vague. The Minister provided some clarification today, and he had a second bite at the cherry in Committee, where he amended the wording of the Bill. However, there is still room for improvement. In Committee, the Minister explained that paragraph 8 of schedule 3 is designed to ensure that normal media editorial activities are not curtailed by the London Olympics association right. The provision describes editorial usage that is exempt from the rules governing the London Olympics association right—namely, the publishing or broadcasting of information or reports on the Olympics.
	The position appears to be clear until one considers the many permutations of editorial usage that are not included in the definition. Bona fide editorial activity could include news columns, features, readers' letters, reviews, comment and analysis in newspapers. In broadcasting, it could include documentaries, drama, children's programmes, travel programmes, panel discussions and news. To encompass all aspects of legitimate editorial usage, we tabled amendment No. 10, which refers to
	"any editorial usage including without limitation".
	Such usage would be exempt from the regulations governing the London Olympics association right. That is a simpler and more effective approach that prevents any form of editorial usage from being inadvertently omitted from the list. Time after time, the Minister has said that he does not like lists because something can always be added or removed from them. I have solved the problem with wording that removes the need for a list. However, the amendment does not risk opening the floodgates for illegitimate association with the Olympics, because it maintains a clear distinction between editorial and advertising usage.
	Amendment No. 13 follows on from amendment No. 10 as it, too, attempts to ensure that all legitimate editorial association with the Olympics is not regarded as an infringement of the association right. Paragraph 8 of schedule 3 permits representation of the Olympics in information about the London Olympics. However, in the course of their editorial activities, the media may publish information about other events and activities in which the London Olympics are mentioned but are not the subject. For example, a news item about London transport could refer to the Olympic games, although the games are not the subject of that information. Similarly, a feature article about sport in the national curriculum could refer to the Olympics, but such a report is not about the Olympics. Such usage should be covered by paragraph 8 by virtue of its editorial status, not by virtue of its content or the nature of the subject matter. Amendment No. 13 allows this by removing the requirement that information must be about the Olympics and, in order to ensure that all bona fide editorial usage is safeguarded, inserts
	"including news and current affairs".
	Amendment No. 14 builds on amendment No. 13 and allows information associated with the Olympics to be used specifically
	"for the purposes of criticism and review".
	Adding this category of editorial usage ensures that further material such as comment pieces, readers' letters and general reviews such as entertainment, leisure or travel is brought under the protective umbrella of paragraph 8.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have been tabled to remove the possibility that a statutory body, LOCOG, could have a say in determining what constitutes legitimate editorial content. The Bill confines exemptions to the London Olympics association right to representation
	"as a necessary incident of publishing or broadcasting"
	reports or information. As LOCOG is the grantor and enforcer of the association right, the Bill implies that LOCOG will apply paragraph 8, advising on and adjudicating editorial content.
	It is worrying that any statutory body should play a part in controlling editorial activities. How can such a situation pertain? The Newspaper Society is deeply concerned about it and states:
	"For a statutory body to have any role in determining the content of a newspaper's editorial material would be without precedent and would represent an utterly unacceptable incursion into the freedom of the press, and a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being contrary to Article 10 of the Convention."
	The Minister looks surprised, but he has had meetings with representatives of the media. ITN believes the paragraph introduces
	"an unacceptable level of external intrusion by a statutory body into editorial freedoms".
	I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes those concerns seriously. We have tabled amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to remove the contentious wording and substitute the more neutral and legally certain specification that a representation must be "in the course" of publishing news or information.
	It is important that we clarify the legislation governing editorial content and the Olympics association right in order to allow the media to perform their crucial role of informing and inspiring the public. Stifling the media's ability to report the London Olympics will damage the games as a whole and inevitably lead to a less successful games—a situation that we are all keen to avoid.
	I fully support amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which are practical and pragmatic. For a long time there has been uncertainty about when various provisions will come into effect. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) proposes a sensible time scale. In Sydney, the time scales were even shorter. Knowing that the Minister is keen to get on as quickly as possible, the hon. Gentleman proposes a slightly earlier start date than I was expecting, but the amendments make eminent sense and I wish him luck in persuading the Minister to accept the good sense of what he is about to propose.

Hugh Robertson: Time is marching on so I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for his comments in connection with amendment No. 9. In the light of his assurances, I am happy to leave the matter there.
	On amendment No. 8, I wholly accept what the Minister says about LOCOG's desire to start the process of looking for sponsors early, and the fact that it needs the necessary safeguards if it is to do that. However, there are concerns in the advertising industry about the practical implications for advertising pre-clearance and copy advice. Television advertising, in particular, has long lead times. As we all know, advertisements can be 18 months in the making, and a campaign costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce and broadcast. There are serious and costly implications for advertisers and broadcasters if the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, the BACC, has given clearance to a TV advertisement before it is broadcast, and its decision is subsequently overturned by LOCOG. It could, in theory, insist that the advertisement were withdrawn, but under this legislation it could also sue for damages and take out an injunction against the advertiser.
	Secondly, another, even more technical issue must be addressed before the Bill comes into effect. The committee of advertising practice, which is the code-owning body within the Advertising Standards Authority system, offers advertising copy advice on a voluntary basis in the non-broadcast media. I understand that the CAP has said that it is not in a position to give copy advice because the legislation will lie outside its self-regulatory British code of advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing, which the ASA enforces. The CAP apparently takes a similar approach to financial services advertising, the components of which are regulated entirely by the Financial Services Authority, which is a body that I remember with considerable pleasure from my time in the City.
	I realise that both of those points are technical, and if the Minister undertakes to write to me I will be happy not to press them.

Richard Caborn: We have all been reading from scripts on the final group of amendments and have been extremely well briefed by forces outside this House. I understand the concerns of some of our dear colleagues in media and advertising—although their points are highly technical, they are important.
	We have framed the Bill to protect LOCOG and the Olympics, to make sure that the Olympics are not exploited by rogue elements and to maintain the freedom of the press. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) knows that a dialogue is continuing with those in media and advertising. I cannot add much to what I have said already. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Some hon. Members want to leave the House sooner rather than later. I will write to hon. Members to clear up those points, which will allow them to write to those who sent them the brief, to whom I will also respond.

Don Foster: I am most grateful for the Minister's extremely brief, unhelpful response.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has responded to his own Government amendment. The hon. Gentleman does not have the right to reply to a reply to a reply.
	Amendment agreed to
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
	I shall start by thanking all the members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who have taken part in today's debate. The Bill has received thorough scrutiny, which has been conducted in a fair-minded fashion throughout. I am particularly grateful for the consistent support provided by the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Bath. They have been quick to understand and welcome the principles behind the Bill, and they have kept me on my toes throughout.
	I am also grateful for the support provided by the devolved Administrations. Hon. Members will be glad to note that on 10 November the Scottish Parliament gave its consent to those provisions in the Bill that trigger the Sewel convention, and I have taken the opportunity to place a copy of the relevant Scottish Executive memorandum, including the Sewel motion, in the Libraries of both Houses.
	On Third Reading, it is worth taking a step back from the detail to remind the House why we have introduced this Bill and why the Bill is so important to the success of the London Olympics. We need the Olympics to be on time and on budget, which is why we must get the ODA up and running quickly as the single body responsible for planning and construction.
	It is great that we now have a dynamic leadership team in place in Jack Lemley and David Higgins. I wish them both well. They have a proven track record in delivering huge projects, and they can now get on with the preparatory work that needs to be done on the setting up of the ODA. To do the rest of the job, they need the full set of powers and functions that the Bill provides in order to plan and construct venues and facilities, to co-ordinate the transport plan, and to maintain a clean Olympic environment. Through the Bill, we are able to ensure that the ODA is fully accountable to Ministers and to Parliament.
	The ODA will be at the centre of the Olympic project for the next seven years. After 2012, it will have a key role in helping to reconfigure Olympic venues and the Olympic park to ensure that the games result in real and lasting benefits for east London and for the whole United Kingdom.

Philip Hollobone: What consideration has been given to the conjunction of the Olympic games in 2012 with, if all goes well, the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen? Given that a large number of Commonwealth countries will take part in the Olympic games, is there any way in which the two events can be joined together, as it were, better to promote the United Kingdom across the world?

Richard Caborn: That has been mentioned in several meetings at which I have been present, although not in any great detail. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says and will ensure that it is reported to the relevant areas to see whether we can move it forward.
	The ODA, while central, is only one piece in the jigsaw. The Bill also ensures that where other organisations have key responsibilities for delivering the games, they have the legal powers that they need. For instance, the amendments we have discussed will ensure that regional development agencies, including the London Development Agency, have all the powers that they need to acquire the land required for the games, to time and to budget. The Mayor signed the host city contract on London's behalf, and the Greater London Authority will provide a significant slice of funding. The Bill provides the GLA with an Olympic power to ensure that those obligations are fulfilled and that the GLA is able to help prepare for and to manage the games.
	Under the host city contract, LOCOG has a wide range of obligations to the IOC about how the games will be managed. Some of those obligations need to be reflected in the Bill, particularly the IOC's requirements on ticket touting and what it terms brand protection. Those have been among the most keenly debated parts of the Bill, especially where we are creating new intellectual property rights relating to London 2012 for LOCOG to protect. I repeat that the measures that we are taking to protect against ambush marketing are vital not only for the financial security of LOCOG and the games but for the image of the Olympics, which must not become tarnished by a commercial free-for-all. I do not think that many Members would disagree with those principles. I hope that in the course of debates in Committee and on Report I have provided full reassurance that where new restrictions are being created they will be enforced in a proportionate and targeted fashion in consultation with the advertising industry and others. We must be firm in stopping those who want to rip off the Olympics, but we will not disrupt anyone's right to make an honest living.
	The quick passage of this Bill is the first milestone in the successful delivery of the 2012 games. The IOC has been particularly complimentary about the progress that we have made in getting the legislation this far this quickly. It is pleased that London has been so quick to get itself moving towards 2012. I thank the Opposition for helping us to make that happen. This is a good Bill that is better for the amendments that we have made to it. I commend it to the House.

Hugh Robertson: It is exactly five months since 6 July, when we won the games bid in Singapore. I want to finish my remarks on the Bill where I started on Second Reading by congratulating all those who worked so hard to bring the Olympic games to London. I say that not because it is a nice thing to say at the end of the passage of a piece of legislation but because I genuinely mean it. I pay tribute to Lord Coe, Keith Mills and everybody involved in the bid at London 2012. I congratulate the other shareholders: the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, who did so much in the days running up to the bid, the Secretary of State and the Minister, who has dealt with the Bill as it has gone through the House; the Mayor of London; and the British Olympic Association, especially the Princess Royal, who did particularly well in Singapore and has not, in some quarters, received the thanks that she deserves.
	I also hope—again, I say this very honestly—that the Minister will take back to his Department my thanks and those of my party to his civil servants, who have worked extremely hard on the bid and on the Bill as it has gone through the House.
	Delivering a successful Olympic games in 2012 will not be easy, and there is no doubt that it is a considerable challenge, but the Bill's Third Reading marks a significant moment in delivery on the pledges made to the IOC in Singapore. Although the Bill is not lengthy in parliamentary terms, it is quite complex, setting up a regional development agency in the Olympic delivery authority in the first half and establishing the ground rules for the commercial media rights in the second. I am pleased that we have found so much common ground, have been able to improve the Bill, and have been able to maintain cross-party support.
	As the Bill leaves our House, I have only three outstanding concerns. To be honest, I must say that not all of them relate to the Bill. First, sport as a whole must benefit from our hosting the games in 2012. I think that there is a good deal of cross-party agreement on that, but it is not yet entirely clear how it will be achieved.
	I should like effort to be concentrated on three elements. Much good work has already been done on reform of the organisation of sport—I commend the Minister for that—but there is more to be done, along the lines of what has been suggested by the independent sports review. We also need the funds that are necessary to meet the British Olympic Association's objective of moving us from 10th to fourth in the medal table. There are also implications for non-Olympic sports, particularly mass-participation sports. It is feared that funds will be diverted from them to the Olympics.
	Our second main concern, which has been discussed at length today, is the impact of cost overruns on the London council tax payer. Finally, there is a small issue that I fear may cause problems in the other place: the reversal of the presumption of innocence.
	If the Government are prepared to offer concessions on any of those three outstanding issues, it will ease the Bill's passage. Having said that, I bid it fair passage. I thank the Minister and his civil servants for what they have done, and reaffirm my party's support for the Bill and, indeed, the games. The Olympics are the most unique historic and valuable asset in world sport. I am delighted and, like sport lovers throughout the country, not a little excited that London is to host the games in 2012.

Lyn Brown: For me, the central issue in the debate is whether the 2012 games are remembered not just for providing a truly world-class event for London, but for giving a lifelong legacy to east London, to London generally and to the United Kingdom. I believe that the Bill augurs well for the delivery of successful games, on time and to budget. Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), however, I have three remaining concerns. First, there is the question of who will be held to account for the delivery of the legacy of the games. Secondly, there is the lack of reference to local government, along with its implications. Thirdly, there are the local difficulties caused to residents and businesses.
	The physical legacy to my constituency is not in doubt. West Ham will look very different by 2012. Two thirds of the Olympic park and most of the facilities—including the athletes' village, the main stadium, the swimming pools, the media centre and the warm-up tracks—will be in Newham, and 18 of the 26 events will take place within 20 minutes' walk of Stratford station. We have been promised the creation of the largest capital-city park in Europe for 150 years, a park that will incorporate the venues but will also, symbolically and physically, unify communities. It will be the heart of a prestigious new development, Stratford City. The proposals will deliver more than 9,000 new homes in and around the Olympic park, with schools and health and community facilities to match. That is welcome news for my constituency and the surrounding area.
	Newham has an exceptionally young population: 41 per cent. of its inhabitants are under 25. It is a poor constituency, bordering to the west and north on areas that are also poor. All its key indicators are in the bottom 10 of the list drawn up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The promised legacy of the Olympics and the Paralympics would provide a sustainable solution to the poverty and disadvantage experienced in my constituency and in other communities with similar social and economic indicators, and the Bill goes a long way towards embracing that aspiration.
	One of the difficulties that I have with the drafting of the Bill is that clause 4(3) states that
	"the Authority shall, wherever relevant— have regard to the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them".
	Will the Minister emphasise and underline that commitment, so that the words
	"have regard to the desirability"
	appear a little less soft and a bit more enthusiastic and emphatic?
	We said in the bid that we would radically transform London's east end and, through this sporting spectacle, regenerate a poor inner-city area. I recognise that that will be a huge challenge, and to achieve it we must be clear about whose job it is. Who is to be responsible for overseeing the delivery of the legacy? If I understand the situation correctly, neither the London organising committee for the Olympic games—LOCOG—nor the Olympic Delivery Authority owns the responsibility for delivering the legacy for the country. Individual organisations are responsible for the delivery of bits of it—for example, Sport England will be responsible for the sporting legacy, but which body will ensure that it is on track to deliver greater grass-roots participation? Who will be held accountable for the employment legacy, or for realising the health benefits? Who will be responsible for monitoring and scrutinising the different agencies charged with delivery of the various legacy plans?
	The reference in clause 4(3) is perhaps not designed to ensure the delivery of the greatest challenge to the games, namely the economic and social legacy. It was the whole package that prompted the huge support for the bid from ordinary Londoners and others, and we must not let them down. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing a formal mechanism and place official ownership of the responsibility for the legacy within the proposed delivery processes. The games are a catalyst to be seized or squandered. We need to plan for the social gains from the games, to set targets for the reduction of poverty, and to realise real social and economic change for the poorest in society from this huge investment.
	I get a sense of the potential of the legacy by considering the impact that the bidding process had on my constituency. As a councillor in the London borough of Newham, I led a two-year programme of sporting, cultural and community activity, using the pull of the Olympics to engage and inspire the community. By the end of the bidding process, there were clear, tangible benefits for the betterment of health, education and antisocial behaviour. For example, 43 per cent. of free swims were taken up by people in social groups D and E, and there were 64,000 attendances at Newham's Olympic summer of sport. The completion rates for exercise on prescription schemes went up from 34 to 52 per cent., and 40 new after-school clubs were founded around sport and physical activity. The number of sports coaches more than doubled, new disability sports clubs were established, and the West Ham Asians in Football programme was expanded. And 25 per cent. fewer young people were reported to the local magistrates court.
	There are many more similar examples, and if all that can be achieved by local authority leadership around the bid process alone, the social legacy of the games could be truly life-transforming. Those schemes required funding and were achieved by a combination of mainstream and temporary funding. The gains were achieved by local government working in the community. This was not rocket science, and I am sure that examples such as those have been and will be replicated by other local authorities across the country.
	If we are to get real social and economic benefits from the games, local government must be integral to the planning and delivery of the soft outcomes for social and economic regeneration. In October 2000, the Government charged local government with the duty to provide for the economic, social and environmental well-being of its own areas. They did so because local government is best placed to deliver those objectives locally; it is part of its core business. We need to ensure that local government is at our Olympic table, leading on clearly drawn and resourced local renewal and regeneration strategies.
	The job of realising the legacy is too big for one tier of government, whether national, regional or local. The job can be done successfully only if all tiers of government and the voluntary, community and private sectors work together in partnership towards the same objectives.
	We must remember that renewal and regeneration will come at a price for some in the area where the games are to be held. Local businesses will be displaced because of the need to create space for the Olympic park stadium. Estimates suggest that more than 300 businesses will be affected by the proposals. Companies are increasingly concerned by the action or, they feel, lack of action by the London Development Agency. Negotiations have been under way for a long time and no conclusions have yet been reached. That is placing reputable and thriving concerns in jeopardy, and it is not on. Surely the LDA must take immediate steps to assure the businesses concerned and to expedite relocation and compensation. If the LDA does not have the resources or capacity to undertake that role, I ask the Minister to act, and either to provide additional capacity or to take the responsibility from the agency.
	The games will also result in the demolition of the housing co-op at Clays lane, which was established in the early 1980s to address the lack of housing for young, single people in the east of London. Approximately, it houses about 450 tenants, who face an uncertain and unsettling future. Communication appears to have been sparse and not very comforting, with assurances made prior to the bid now apparently being watered down by the LDA. I ask the Minister again to hold the agency to account, and to ensure that those tenants are not disadvantaged by their relocation.
	If the legacy of the games is to be realised, we must plan for it, ensure that we know who is responsible for the delivery of the legacy and hold them to account to deliver on it. The challenges of east London are immense, but the opportunities of those challenges are in our grasp if we harness and resource all parties to deliver on them. Let us realise the potential of the games, and deliver a real legacy for generations.

Don Foster: In some parts of America, politicians can have their speeches read into the record without having to deliver them. In a sense, I wish that we had that opportunity, as my opening remarks echo entirely what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said. Rather than list all the people he listed, let me merely say that all those people deserve our thanks for the huge amount of work that they did to bring the Olympics and Paralympics to London in 2012. It was a fantastic team effort by a large number of dedicated and committed people, and one thing above all set our bid apart from everybody else's—its underpinning of Olympic and Paralympic ideals in relation to sporting activities, which could liberate and inspire people not only in this country but across the world.
	I also want to thank the Minister for his contribution and thank the Opposition parties for the role that we have played. It is important to place it on record that a small but perhaps important part of the reason that we won the bid was the clear demonstration of all-party unity in backing it. I hope that our deliberations today, on Report and Third Reading, and the work done in Committee and on Second Reading indicate that that cross-party co-operation can continue while allowing the opportunity for constructive criticism when we disagree in certain areas. We have made splendid progress, however, in getting the Bill to this stage. Indeed, given that the Olympics afford a glorious opportunity for Britain, it is right that the Bill has had a smooth passage. It is equally important to recognise that progress has been made on so many other fronts, not only on the measure.
	It was fantastic to hear Denis Oswald, the chairman of the IOC's co-ordination commission for the games, say towards the end of August of the work on the Olympics here,
	"it could not have started on a better footing".
	A huge amount of work has already been done and more is under way. Compulsory purchase orders have been issued and LOCOG now has many staff. Many are experienced and were involved in the bid. The Go for Gold scratchcard is a huge success and has already raised more than £3 million. It is the most successful scratchcard of its type. We know about the Mayor's exciting proposals for the great rejuvenation and redevelopment of the east end of London.
	Much else has happened. Building work is under way at the Olympic park but that is also true in other parts of the country, such as Norwich, Sunderland, Edinburgh and Brighton. Betting has already started on how well different countries will do in the Olympics. I noted with interest that Lord Moynihan, who heads the British Olympic Association, has bet his Australian counterpart on how many gold medals their respective countries will win. The winner will provide bottles of Bollinger to the other. We shall see how that goes.
	However, much remains to be done. The Bill is important because it establishes the framework in which the work will be done, the way in which we ensure that the resources come in and the right bodies to make it happen. For example, we must provide appropriate protection for IOC and LOCOG sponsors against ambush marketing, inappropriate advertising and so on.
	There is a huge prize, if we get it right. We will invigorate our sporting nation, regenerate some of the most deprived areas in our country, improve the environment, thus setting sustainability standards for the future, showcase the country's excellence in arts and culture and—perhaps most important—unite the nation. That is an exciting prospect and the work that we have done on the Bill—the amendments and changes that we have made—ensure that we will progress and deliver a successful games.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is passionate about the games coming to London. She speaks passionately about the enthusiasm in her area for them and talks movingly of the way in which they will provide sustainable regeneration in her area. She is right to stress that. On other occasions, she has spoken about the way in which the games can raise the aspirations of the people she represents. She summed it up today by saying that the Olympics will leave a life-transforming social legacy. That is true for West Ham and every other part of the country.
	It is interesting to note a recent survey, which showed that 68 per cent. of Londoners said that the games would bring long-term benefits. That statistic is reflected in many other parts of the country. The figure rose to 78 per cent. among 18 to 34-year-olds. Young people in particular understand the genuine benefit that can derive from the games.
	We have made a united, fantastic start on delivering the best ever Olympic and Paralympic games. There is a long way to go and I hope that the unity that we have experienced so far in the House will continue.

Andy Reed: I am delighted to discuss the Bill on Third Reading. It has been a great pleasure to take part in the consideration of the Bill, including in Committee. With sport, we often have cross-party consensus on how we want to deliver legislation. That was reflected both in the bid beforehand and in our consideration of the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) highlighted the fact that we have managed to maintain that approach so far. There was a slight reluctance on the Government's part to back the bid right from the start before they had carried out a proper assessment. They were concerned about whether it would be possible to maintain the process until 2012, particularly given the way in which the media like to treat these matters, with the British approach of doom and gloom. So far, we have managed to maintain a spirit of optimism, and I hope that the spirit of co-operation that has been evident today and throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee will continue until 2012.
	The legacy of the games will be important for each and every one of us, not only for those in London. There will be social and sporting benefits throughout the country. It is imperative that the Bill delivers a sporting legacy that brings about a massive difference for people throughout the United Kingdom. Some people, although not many, do not appreciate the value of sport and what it can do for their local community in terms of health, education, crime reduction and purely for its own sake. The warm words that are usually associated with sport have to be turned into action and, harshly, into hard cash. We have warm words for the arts sector, and it receives an enormous amount of Exchequer funding. I wish that we could generate the same level of funding to encourage sporting prowess in this country, especially at grass-roots level, where we still have some work to do.
	We have made some tremendous strides in league funding and school sport, and have managed to make up for the past 15 or 20 years of decline. Indeed, that has been turned around. Although we can be proud of being able to generate the next generation of young people who are interested in sport, who have had the opportunity to participate and who now want to carry that through, there is a pyramid. Our elite facilities in Loughborough, Sheffield and Bath are among the best in the world. I am sure that other hon. Members know of other excellent sporting facilities throughout the country, for example in Weymouth and Cardiff. I have been to UWIC to be thrashed by the Welsh at rugby, so I am aware of those great facilities.
	Although we have the ability to deliver at league level, to make a difference we must deliver at grass-roots level, so that everyone, when they walk out of their front doors, knows that they have a sporting opportunity in whatever sport they wish to participate in. That may be one of the 28 Olympic sports, but we must ensure that there is the same passion and that the same ability to participate is open to everyone in all the other sports that will not be represented at the Olympics. To make a sporting pun, we should not take our eye off the ball. We must recognise all sporting agendas.
	It is my passion that sports volunteers should receive recognition for what happens. At the Olympics, we shall rightly focus on trying to get as many UK athletes, throughout all the sporting agendas, on to the podium. A great deal of effort will be made to ensure that we come fourth, fifth or sixth in the medal table. It would be fantastic if we managed to achieve fourth place. The media will decide whether the Olympic games have been a success or a failure on the basis of the number of people we get on to the podium.
	For me—I am sure that this applies to the many who are passionate about sport—the real success will be our legacy, participation and generating the next group of people who will volunteer and come through. It has been interesting to be involved in consideration of the Bill because we have been trying to build on our legacy. We have not been waiting for 2012. We cannot call on sports volunteers the week before the Olympics start and say, "Right, you will now wear a blazer and be involved." We must build up the expertise and the volunteer base to ensure that we have people who are fully skilled. We must use the enthusiasm for the Olympics to ensure that that happens.
	It was fantastic to be part of that enthusiasm and to see complete strangers hugging each other and jumping for joy—I was not among them as I was filming those fantastic events with my camera. I was delighted to be asked to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill. Being from Loughborough, I was excited to be involved in the London Olympics Bill, but I did not realise that most of it would be about traffic regulation, brand protection and the establishment of a regional development agency. It was an interesting learning curve. It has been fascinating to discover the process, particularly on brand protection, as I had just a little knowledge of that.
	A couple of outstanding issues have been touched on in the debate. We have mentioned betting. I understand that one of the contractual commitments that the Government have given to the IOC is to allow it to control—or even, if it seems appropriate, to prohibit—betting on the Olympics in the UK. I hope that the Minister will write to me on those issues, as although we have touched on them, we have probably not followed them through, and they are clearly important.
	The issue of betting has the potential to strike at the integrity of sport. For example, a referee in Germany took bribes to throw particular games and there have been other examples at the Olympics. Cricket has had its own problems over the past few years. Sporting integrity and betting now go together. The IOC has managed to stamp down on the drugs problem, and it would be great to ensure in the build-up to 2012 that we are well ahead of the game as sports betting increasingly becomes an issue.
	I am not sure whether we have managed to cover that issue sufficiently during deliberations on the Bill so far, or whether the Minister has plans to introduce any amendments in the Lords to cover the commitment to the IOC and how far that goes. As he knows, there are some problems in the sports betting world over the pools companies no longer entering contractual relationships with the football leagues for the sale of data, particularly match data. That creates another little knock-on problem for grass-roots sport. We talked about that earlier when we discussed the lottery and how the money is distributed. So there are little problems. They may involve only tens of thousands of pounds for some football clubs, but they are important, so I hope that the Minister will examine that matter.
	The Minister mentioned ticket touting. The Bill includes some welcome measures to protect the London Olympics from ticket touts. As he knows, ticket touting is a growing problem for sport. It diverts resources from sport and deprives real fans of tickets. When many of us who are passionate about sport and involved at grass-roots level try to get hold of tickets, we find that the corporate packages make it increasingly difficult for genuine fans to do so. That is why I welcome the recent ticket touting summit that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has called with representatives of the major sporting governing bodies. I hope that that is a success.
	The Minister will know that the International Rugby Board is a strong supporter of legislation to combat ticket touting. I wonder whether we can build into the Bill measures to extend the same protection as we have given the Olympic team to those involved in other sports. That would be most welcome.
	This is a reasonable Bill. It has been fantastic just to play a small part in the process of delivering the Olympics. All of us who have been involved in the Bill will enjoy seeing the end of its passage in this place and look forward with great passion and, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, excitement to being part of the crowd watching the greatest Olympics that we have known in London in 2012. I hope, too, that people from all over the country, including those who have the potential to play a part in training camps or as volunteers, will enjoy it. We must ensure not only that we enjoy it but that we get up there on the Olympic medal table, and that the lasting legacy is not just those golds but a future for British sport that means that we take it seriously and put our cash where our mouths are.

Richard Caborn: As I said earlier, it has been a privilege and pleasure to take the Bill through Parliament. The contributions on Third Reading show what the nation was feeling on 6 July. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) encapsulated that. Many people stood in Trafalgar square, and some Members were with me in Singapore. I visited my French counterpart, Jean-Francois Lamour, in the hall in Singapore, and I had to squeeze past some 50 or 60 journalists to get to him. Steve Redgrave and David Beckham were involved on our behalf, but we had only three photographers in front of us. I thought, "The result has been leaked and we obviously haven't won." Jacques Rogge kept the world in suspense by delaying opening the envelope containing the result. I point out by way of an aside that as we speak, a silver letter-opener is being made for him, on which is engraved, "Please do not keep the world waiting in anticipation again." When Jacques Rogge finally opened that envelope, he said, "London." Until that moment, a lot of people who wanted us to win the bid did not quite believe that we could do so. Such enthusiasm added to the atmosphere in Trafalgar square and definitely to that in Singapore, and it has carried all the way through. When people look back in years to come, they will recognise that through this Bill, we have established a foundation for an Olympic games that has never been established before.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I, along with others, travelled the world to speak to representatives of many of the cities that have hosted the Olympics. We asked one simple question: "What would you do differently if you hosted the games again?" They were very generous in giving advice and we have worked on the basis of it. The product is this Bill, which will deliver a structure that will address, for example, the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) about cost overruns. The framework that we have established will be cost-effective, and it is absolutely crucial that in the next 18 months, we get the company up and running, the various structures in place and the contracts laid. We must not get involved in crisis management; we must control the process from start to finish. If we do that, we will host a good games. Such an approach will also enable us to tackle seriously the other elements that make an Olympic games highly successful.
	One such element is legacy. Other Olympic games have had to resort to crisis management, and we ourselves have done so with certain big projects. We have learned from that. Avoiding the need for crisis management will give us the space in which to develop the games. Legacy, which the Olympic board controls, is a very important issue to which there are many strands: the built environment, the human environment, the sporting infrastructure, and the cultural infrastructure. I hope that after 2012, we will leave behind one of the best sporting infrastructures in the world. Other strands include participation and talent identification. We want the talented athlete scholarship scheme to find talented young people in our secondary schools not by chance but by design, and to maximise their potential for producing world-class performances. Unlike Steve Redgrave and Kelly Holmes, who were discovered by chance, we want such people to be discovered by design. We are instituting that scheme and the mentoring of young students, arranging the curriculum around such activities and taking them through the scheme as one. The Olympic board deals with many such legacy issues, and in turn it is responsible to this House and its organs, such as Select Committees. I am sure that we will deliver in this area.
	On betting, the IOC has asked us to look at that issue, but we have made it clear that we have no plans to legislate. We are discussing with the governing bodies how we can assist on the question of ticket-touting, particularly in the light of the electronic means by which touting is now carried out, such as via eBay.
	The momentum generated by the great euphoria of 6 July is still there throughout the country. If we can maintain it by developing cultural activities and grass-root sports projects throughout the UK—in the regions and through the devolved Administrations—we will have a lasting legacy that will be second to none.
	Many of us take seriously the narrative on which we won the games—which was reconnecting young people with sport through the five rings and the Olympic movement. While the Bill is about the delivery of the games by the UK, I believe that we have a responsibility to the Olympic movement and the world to use the great influence that we have through the Commonwealth, the European Union and many other institutions to achieve that aim. Seb Coe and those working with him hope that, come 2012, we will deliver the narrative on which, according to the International Olympic Committee, we won the bid and bring young people back into sport through the Olympic movement.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MEDICINE REVIEWS (OLDER PEOPLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of medication reviews for older people. I do so because I believe that if good practice in medication review were to be the norm across the NHS, it could transform the lives of millions of people.
	At the moment, there are more than 3.6 million people over 75 taking at least one medication and 1.6 million taking four or more medications. On the evidence that I have, it is clear that most of them have never benefited from a review of their medication in the way that is envisaged in the national service framework for older people. Getting the dosage right, understanding the complex interplay of different medicines and making sure that medicines are taken at the right time can make a huge difference to people's health and quality of life. For some, simply getting medication right can be like turning the light back on—it can make a huge difference. For others, getting the medication right can be a matter of life or death.
	My purpose in having a debate on this issue is to press the Minister for more concerted action to realise the full potential of medication reviews. What do I mean by medication review? That is a good question, because there is no single agreed definition of what constitutes a medication review. However, there is a proposed definition. It comes from the medicines partnership and has been endorsed by the Department of Health. It says that a medication review is:
	"A structured, critical examination of a patient's medicines with the objective of reaching an agreement with the patient about treatment, optimising the impact of medicines, minimising the number of medication related problems and reducing waste."
	I have long been concerned about the impact that poor medication practice can have on the quality of life of older people. In particular, I still do not believe that enough is being done to stamp out the inappropriate use of medication in care homes. At its worst, the use of medication becomes restraint by chemical means, and that is elder abuse.
	According to the most recent figures from the Commission for Social Care Inspection, more than 5,700 of the 13,000 care homes in England either did not meet or almost met the national minimum standard for medication last year. Let us be clear that we are talking about a minimum standard. I acknowledge that those figures are a modest improvement on the previous year, but try telling that to the residents living in one of the homes who do not meet the minimum standard.
	I was even more worried to note that the National Care Standards Commission—the predecessor of the Commission for Social Care Inspection—pointed out in its report on medication that:
	"The majority of prescribed medicines will be supplied by a GP on a repeat basis at the request of care staff and not the service user."
	That places care staff in a powerful position to influence prescribing for good or for ill. In a briefing for today's debate, the Parkinson's Disease Society points out the need to review the medicine management standards, especially standard 9.1, which deals with self-medication. It wants to see greater clarity over the issue of timing of medication, and I strongly agree.
	In 2003, a study in the British Medical Journal concluded that older people in care homes received poorer medical care than those living at home, in terms of over-use of inappropriate or unnecessary drugs, poor monitoring of chronic disease and under-use of beneficial drugs. That is one of the reasons why regular medication review should be part of the process and why I welcomed the national service framework for older people medication standards.
	Although I support the standards, it must be said that international evidence suggests that annual reviews of prescriptions for elderly people, as proposed in the NSF, are inadequate. Harm can be done, and is done, in far less than a year. There is a huge gap between the intention of the Government's policy, which is to be applauded, and its implementation over the last few years since the NSF was published. That gap has been caused by a lack of clarity and insufficient incentives to deliver what is expected; in particular, the new GP contract does not provide the necessary incentives for more frequent reviews.
	Among the indicators in the quality and outcomes framework—QOF—for the contract, two specifically incentivise regular review of medication. The first is:
	"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed four or more repeat medicines."
	That is worth seven points. The second is:
	"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed repeat medicines."
	That is worth eight points. So the QOF says 15 months, yet the NSF talks about 12 months for people on fewer than four medications and six months for people on more than four medications. Neither actually sets out what qualifies as a medication review. Am I the only one who thinks there is a problem?
	Every time I have raised the issue with Ministers through written questions and in debate I have been left with the distinct feeling that the NSF medicine review standard has been quietly dropped. That impression was reinforced in February when the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who was then a Minister in the Department of Health, told me:
	"The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) indicator for medication reviews for people prescribed repeat medicines was developed by a group of independent experts who were commissioned by the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation. The group developed QOF indicators using its own search of the evidence and did not necessarily use existing national service framework (NSF) standards. Although this means that the QOF indicators and NSF standards may not match entirely, meeting the QOF indicator will go a long way to helping practices meet the NSF standard and vice versa."—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1119W.]
	That really beggars belief. It is optimistic, but when the Department was signing off the QOF why did not it ensure that the NSF standard would be achieved? What is the point of producing the NSF standard if it is not being used in that way?

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Let me assure him that he is not the only one with those concerns. There is a growing number of elderly people in my constituency. If there were to be more regular medication reviews, how would that burden affect already overstretched local GP services?

Paul Burstow: I shall probably come to that later in my remarks. There could be an additional burden on GPs and also on pharmacists, and some useful evaluation of the relevant guidelines has been conducted.
	On the point that I was raising about the QOF and the NSF, I was reassured recently by a written answer from the Minister who will reply to the debate. He told me that the NSF standard had not been superseded. That is good news, but the truth is that the standard has not been achieved either. In a written answer, the Minister told me:
	"Historic data for both measures"—
	the milestones set in the NSF for older people—
	"collected from the 146 PCTs taking part in the programme"—
	the national medicines management collaborative programme—
	"suggest that there have been significant and sustained improvements in the number and quality of medication reviews."—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 642W.]
	Where is the evidence to support that contention? Certainly the evaluation of the implementation of the "Room for Review" guidance on medication reviews published by the medicines partnership earlier this year does not point to significant and sustained improvement.
	Part 1 of the evaluation found that only 8 per cent. of primary care trusts had met the NSF standard for annual medication reviews for patients aged over 75. Worse still, just 5 per cent. had met the target for six-monthly reviews for patients over 75 who were on four or more medicines. The NSF milestone for medicine reviews was 2002. That is when this was meant to be in place, albeit with the potential burdens that would arise from it.
	Even in 2004, 47 per cent. of PCTs were reporting that they would not be able to conduct six-monthly medicine reviews for over-75s on four or more medicines. Delve a little deeper into part 1 of the evaluation and one finds that even in those PCTs that said they were doing it, not every GP practice was actually conducting and taking part in medication reviews. More worrying still, the evaluation found that in the PCTs that had implemented medication reviews, only a minority of reviews were conducted face to face. That type of patient-centred review was therefore being considered by PCTs as "aspirational"—as a gold standard—and therefore limited to more complex patients.
	As I am sure the Minister will know, "Room for Review" defined four levels of medication review—levels 0 to 3. Of these, level 3 involved the patients in face-to-face discussion about their medicines and therefore offered the opportunity to explore the patient's views and experiences of using medicines and allowed them to share in the decision-making process about future prescribing—

Peter Bone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate on this exceptionally important issue. One of my constituents has brought this problem up. One drawback seems to be that a lot of people in care homes have some sort of dementia, and therefore the face-to-face review is more difficult, and I get the feeling that because it is more difficult it is not being done.

Paul Burstow: I fear that that is a problem. All too often, repeat prescriptions are ordered by care staff and inappropriate historic prescriptions continue without being properly checked and vetted. That is why the process really has to engage with the patient and, if necessary, carers and other family members who have authority to take informed decisions and give consent.
	The lack of a specific requirement for level 3-type reviews in the NSF and the quality and outcomes framework has reinforced the view in PCTs and among practitioners that patient-centred reviews are "nice to have" but not a "must have".
	Part 1 of the evaluation was conducted in January 2004 and published in March 2005, which really does prompt the question, why did it take so long to publish the findings? While I am asking about part 1 of the evaluation of "Room for Review", I hope that the Minister can clear up a mystery surrounding the publication of part 2, on the patient's view. I was told in July that part 2 would be published over the summer. It was not, so I asked another question about when it would be published and I was told this time that due to ethics clearance requirements it would not be published until the end of 2006. Then I got the news, thanks to Mr. Speaker, that I had secured tonight's debate, and the following day my office took a call from the Department, telling me that part 2 would be published on 5 December. So Christmas has come early, and that is good news. But what is going on?
	Certainly, part 2 paints a mixed picture of patient experience of medication reviews. Part 1 talks about face-to-face reviews being the gold standard, yet the evidence from part 2 suggests that there is quite a long way to go before the potential of that gold standard is realised. Many of the comments from patients suggest that they had been given the impression—I emphasise, given the impression, and that is how they saw it—that the purpose of the review was cost cutting. One woman is quoted in the evaluation as saying that the reason she was given for being called for a medication review was that the PCT wanted to change her tablets
	"not for my benefit, but to bring me into line with the PCT."
	A man echoed that when he recounted a conversation that he had had with a doctor drawing the review. The doctor told him that
	"capsules are dearer so they've got to give you the cheapest medication they've got."
	The concern that medication reviews are essentially about reducing NHS expenditure and saving money is a strong theme running through the second part of the evaluation from the patient's perspective, and it clearly is a problem in terms of how we make these reviews something that people feel comfortable with and see the value of from their own point of view.
	Another concern that emerges concentrates on who conducts these reviews, and it touches on the intervention by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). When it came to GP-led reviews, while most people felt comfortable that their concerns were being addressed, points were made as to whether the GP had sufficient knowledge compared with colleagues in secondary care, which really did fuel a suspicion that the reviews were just being done to save money.
	Another set of concerns arose about pharmacists who were leading reviews. The main issue was about the fact that pharmacists did not have access to the medical records or knowledge of the individual medical situation, but above all there was a real concern, and a question mark, over whether the pharmacist could get medication changed; if they could not, delays were occurring while people waited for their practice to change their medicines.
	With the new pharmacist contract opening up the possibility of a greater role for pharmacists in medicine management, there is a need for clarity. As the medicines partnership points out in its report, the medicine reviews used by pharmacists are not the same as medication reviews. In the executive briefing published yesterday, the medicines partnership said:
	"As with the NSF milestone, there was no published definition of what sort of medication review would qualify for QOF purposes. There is potential for overlap between the different medicines review services and some confusion as to which sorts of reviews 'count' towards which targets. This suggests a need to refocus attention from quantity to quality. PCTs need to consider how the various types of medicines review can help them deliver their objectives and priorities, making sure that reviews deliver maximum benefit to patients and that people with the greatest need and greatest potential to benefit have their medicines reviewed.
	We consider that it is important for PCTs, GPs, nurses and pharmacists to have a clear picture of how the various forms of review fit together and how they can be used to meet local priorities and support care for people with long term conditions."
	To summarise in two words, confusion reigns. That confusion has caused a failure to join the dots between the rise in the prescribing of anti-psychotic drugs, the rise in adverse drug reaction to anti-psychotic drugs and the worrying 35 per cent. increase in the number of non-fatal ADRs among the over-75s and the alarming 83 per cent. increase in fatal ADRs among the over-75s.
	A recent report in the British Medical Journal found that significantly older people were admitted most because of ADRs. The cost to admissions authorities is huge, and the consequences for the individual go without saying. The study concluded that the NSF needs to be implemented. Yes, the NSF medicines standards should be implemented. That would be a step in the right direction. Medication reviews would help to safeguard the health and welfare of older people.
	To conclude, I have some questions. First, will the Minister confirm that the NSF standard for annual and six-monthly reviews is still the standard that the NHS should be measured against? Secondly, when will the NSF standard be achieved, and how will we know? Thirdly, does he agree that we need to look into the national minimum standards for medicines management in care homes for older people to ensure that medication reviews are triggered in accordance with the NSF standards and that the timing of medication is made clear to managers and staff? Fourthly, will he act now to clear up the confusion identified by the evaluation of the medicines partnership and ensure that clear guidance is issued to the NHS, so that everyone is clear what is expected?
	I agree with the medicines partnership that there is a need to focus on quality—that is absolutely right—but that is not sufficient if the NHS is to meet the needs of millions of older people in this country, whose quality of life is impaired because they are not getting the right medication, at the right time and in the right place. I hope that the Minister has something helpful and positive to say.

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate. He has indeed taken a long interest in the subject.
	Medicines are by far the most common form of medical treatment in the UK. People with long-term conditions, many of whom are older, are reliant on those medicines to stay healthy. In fact, 80 per cent. of people over the age of 75 take at least one prescribed medicine and 36 per cent. of them—just over a third—take four or more medicines each day. With that level of medicine prescribing comes the challenge of ensuring that people with long-term conditions, including those who are older, get the maximum possible benefit from that medicine, and the hon. Gentleman made that argument rather eloquently.
	Half of all people—not just older people—on regular treatment do not take their medicines as intended for a number of reasons. Problems with medicines may be the cause of as many as 10 to 15 per cent. of hospital admissions. So people need simple information and advice if they are going to get the best benefit from their medicines. They need to know what their medicines are for, how they work and how they need to take them. However, people also have their own health beliefs, which can affect the way they take their medicines. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman said, involving people in decisions about how medication is taken is an   important way in which we can help to ensure that they take medicines effectively. That explains why medication review is important. It is good that the hon. Gentleman has secured such a debate on the Floor of the House because the matter sometimes does not get the airtime that it deserves.
	A medication review occurs when a health professional reviews a patient's medicines. The health professional ensures that all medicines that would be of benefit are prescribed and that the various treatments work well together and do not cause problems. That might be done if a GP prescribes someone with repeat medicines, but there is also a place for more in-depth reviews in which a health professional sits down with a patient and discusses his or her medicines in detail. That might occur if someone is on an especially complex regime, or if a patient is experiencing problems. Such reviews are important, not least because they allow patients to ask questions about their medicines and to be more involved in any decisions that are taken.
	Given the importance of medicines to many people and the importance of medicine reviews, when we published the national service framework for older people in 2000, we produced a booklet that focused on the specific issue of medicines and older people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that drew together the available evidence and made recommendations on how to improve older people's medicine taking.
	Within that, we set a specific milestone on medication reviews. We recognised that the more medicines people take, the more likely they are to experience difficulties, so the scheme had two elements. First, by 2002, all people aged 75 and over were expected to have medicine reviews at least annually, and, secondly, those taking four or more medicines were to be reviewed at least every six months. Although it was largely for the NHS, working with other stakeholders locally, to implement the NSF on older people, we have nationally supported the improvement of medicine-taking in several ways. Before the publication of the NSF, medication reviews were not systematically undertaken or recorded.
	Let me outline several of the measures that we have taken to support the policy. We have supported several primary care trusts to identify what works best and to share that learning with others through the national medicines management collaborative. About half of PCTs have participated in that programme to implement local medicine management schemes so that people get more help in using their medicines from not only their GPs, but pharmacists and others.
	One of the measures used for assessing improvement was the proportion of people aged over 65 who were on four or more regular medicines and had received a documented medication review in the previous 12 months. There was a significant increase in activity and, in some cases, the reported rate of reviews more than doubled.
	Another measure was the percentage of patients in care homes who had had a documented review of their medicines in the previous year. I am aware that some people believe that people in care homes do not have their medicines reviewed regularly, or sufficiently regularly, but the data from the collaborative work showed that the situation was slightly different. The increase in activity for patients in care homes was similar to that for those living at home, although the two groups had slightly different starting positions. The extent of patient involvement in medication reviews was measured for PCTs in wave 4 of the programme. It increased from 22 per cent. to 62 per cent. in a single year.
	After drawing on this learning, guidance on medication reviews was widely disseminated through "Room for Review: A guide to medication review", which was published by the medicines partnership in conjunction with the national medicines management collaborative in 2002. The document set out a framework on how medication reviews should work, together with supporting tools and advice for managers and health care professionals.
	Two years later, the medicines partnership commissioned an evaluation of the impact of "Room for Review", first to determine the extent to which the guidance had been adopted by PCTs and, secondly, to assess the experience and opinions of a sample of patients who had had a medication review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the original plan was to publish both parts of the evaluation together. However, there were unexpected delays in publishing the part involving patients because of the two practical issues—the need to obtain ethics committee approval and the need to identify a suitable sample of patients through GPs. The medicines partnership did not wish to withhold the findings, so it went ahead and disseminated the survey of PCTs in March 2005. Part 2 was published yesterday.
	I am glad that I have helped to ensure that Christmas has come early for the hon. Gentleman. From the survey of PCTs undertaken in 2004, we know that the majority of PCTs had a written strategy and that more than 60 per cent. of them had agreed local guidelines. About 45 per cent. of the PCTs that responded to that survey indicated that they were achieving or likely to achieve the older people's NSF target. Just 30 per cent. of PCTs said they were unlikely to achieve the target. If the survey were carried out now the figures would be very different, and I shall come on to the results of the GP quality and outcomes framework data later. The relationship between the national service framework and the quality and outcomes framework is important. The NSF indicator is still very much in force, but the way in which it has been implemented through the QOF target has become slightly more flexible to make sure that there is local managerial flexibility for doctors who implement it.

Paul Burstow: That is one of my main concerns, and a key issue in the executive summary of both parts of the evaluation. At the heart of the problem is the fact that a clear working definition of a medication review was not in place when the QOF and the NSF were set. Without such a definition, it is difficult to know what one is measuring and thus be confident that progress is under way.

Liam Byrne: May I write to the hon. Gentleman on that point, as it merits more consideration than I can provide this evening?
	I have talked about the efforts to support PCTs in establishing medicine reviews. We have also ensured that through the new general medical services contract steps are in place to encourage medication reviews. Across the country, about 90 per cent. of GP practices reported that at least 80 per cent. of their patients who were prescribed four or more repeat medicines had had a medication review in the preceding 15 months recorded in their notes. Over four fifths of GP practices reported that at least 80 per cent. of their patients who were prescribed repeat medicines had had a medication review in the preceding 15 months, which is an achievement.
	Alongside the role of PCTs and GPs, we should consider the role of local pharmacists. We have gone to some lengths to underpin the important contribution that pharmacists make through the new community pharmacy contract. In the first six months, pharmacy owners have focused on the delivery of essential services. Even so, by the end of October, more than 20,000 people had had the benefit of a face-to-face consultation with their pharmacist to discuss their medicines and resolve problems. It was clear from the national consultation that we undertook as we developed the health White Paper that the role of community pharmacists was considered important by local communities. We will reflect on that in the White Paper to be published at the turn of the year.

Paul Burstow: Will the Minister ensure that further consideration is given to the need to make sure that, with patients' permission, pharmacists have access to patient records so that they can take their history into account when they look at medicines that are being prescribed?

Liam Byrne: That may, or may not, appear in the White Paper—time will tell.
	From the medicines partnership evaluation that was published yesterday we know that patients welcome medication reviews. To gain the full benefit, they say that they need to be better prepared for the review. We must ensure that there is shared understanding of the purpose of the review to create an environment in which patients are empowered to ask questions about their medicines. We have taken that on board by supporting the medicines partnership in producing a guide to medicine use reviews, which patients can use to prepare and identify the questions that they want to ask before they consult their pharmacist. Copies will be available by the end of the month.
	We have also commissioned NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to develop a clinical guideline that sets out best practice in involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted the role of the Commission for Social Care Inspection in ensuring that medication reviews were carried out in care homes in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards. Where inspections are uncovering instances of inappropriate or over-prescribing of medicines, enforcement action is being taken. I am aware that in the past the hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue of the inappropriate or over-prescribing of anti-psychotic medicines. These medicines have an important role to play in the management of a range of conditions and they have a good safety record, but it is vital that they are used with care and in appropriate clinical situations. The role of non-pharmacological therapies is considered where that is an appropriate course of action.
	CSCI inspectors routinely check records to ensure that medicines are properly controlled and correctly administered. Where the CSCI finds evidence of over- prescribing or inappropriate administration of medicines, such evidence is reported to the police and the professional bodies of those involved in such activities. The CSCI also employs pharmacist inspectors who can be called on for advice.
	Furthermore, I understand that a report that focuses specifically on the management and administration of medication in care homes and in children's homes is expected to be published by the CSCI early in the new year. That report will be important because it will help to identify in much greater detail how care homes are performing against medication national minimum standards. It will also incorporate an analysis of complaints about medicines that the commission has received from care homes. I know that that will be of great interest to the hon. Gentleman.
	In summary, the milestone in the national service framework for older people raised the profile of the importance of effective medicine-taking, and in particular the benefit of regular medication review. Significant action has been taken by primary care trusts and others to put in place the infrastructure to deliver those medication reviews. From the first year of the new general medical services contract, we can see and celebrate the progress that has been made, with the vast majority of people taking regular medicines.

Paul Burstow: The Minister has been generous with his time. Will he undertake to consider the requests that I made at the end of my remarks, particularly the issue of the clarity of medication reviews, which was identified by the medicines partnership in the report that has been available only since yesterday?

Liam Byrne: I shall look into that. There are different types of medication review, and it is for the clinician to determine which is the most appropriate for an individual patient. Sometimes that will involve a face-to-face consultation, but that will not necessarily be the right solution for many patients. I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman with more detail on that.
	We have seen a great deal of progress since the advent of the older people's national service framework. It is part of a broad package of improved care for older people that we have seen unfold over the past seven years. That is a reform programme that we intend to continue.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.